Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Bill O'Brien: What plans he has for speeding up reforms to the common agricultural policy. [12609]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I expect the Commission to propose detailed CAP reforms early next year. Making progress on discussion of those reforms will be a priority for the UK presidency of the Agriculture Council.

Mr. O'Brien: It is pleasing to note that from 1 January next year the EU presidency will be with the Labour Government. As one of the EU's objectives is to help small farms, will my right hon. Friend make every endeavour to ensure that the UK's large farms do not suffer under any CAP reforms? Will he also make every endeavour to assure us that the benefits of any CAP review will be felt by UK customers in the form of lower food prices?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend assurance on both those points. First, I would not support any form of modulation which discriminated against the UK or our efficient farmers. There are arguments for reducing expenditure on the CAP, but the argument that expenditure should be targeted at less efficient farming does not appeal to me. As for directing the benefits of any change towards consumers, I can assure my hon. Friend that we expect consumers to benefit quite significantly from changes to the cereals, beef, and—if we could achieve them—the milk regime too.

Mr. Walter: The Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP are outlined in Agenda 2000, but does the Minister agree that they make little concession towards enlargement of the EU, that they are probably unacceptable to the World Trade Organisation and that the financial outcome will be that they cost the taxpayer more rather than less?

Dr. Cunningham: I can partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the proposals will help us to conform with the likely requirements of the next round of WTO talks, and some will help us to develop a successful enlargement of the EU, which is the policy of Her

Majesty's Government, but proposing that milk quotas should continue until 2006 will not help us to achieve either of those two objectives.

Mr. Blizzard: When considering the effects of European policy on British agriculture, farmers in my constituency are rather keen on the single European currency. Was not the Chancellor's statement on the euro last week in the best interests of British agriculture, while the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice to farmers and shows that the Opposition are completely out of touch with the countryside?

Dr. Cunningham: Exactly so—for a party which claims to be in touch with what is happening in the agriculture and food industries to suppose that that is not the case just shows how out of touch with reality it really is.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that one of the potential benefits that can accrue to the United Kingdom through the coincidence of his custodianship of the Council of Ministers in the first half of next year and the CAP reform agenda is that he will be in a position to resist the understandable political temptation to speed up reform and, if he judges it correctly from a British as well as a wider European interest, he can ensure that time is taken to get the matter right, not least in the light of the implications that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)?
In that context, given the uncertainty against which UK agriculture is operating with the agenda before us, will he take this opportunity to clarify or amplify the remarks made in the Chamber earlier in the week during the rural affairs debate as to the immediate, early, specific and targeted steps that he can take to alleviate some of the income difficulties being experienced, particularly in the less favoured areas, with regard to hill livestock compensatory allowances?

Dr. Cunningham: There were several questions there.
I broadly support the proposals for agricultural reform in Agenda 2000. As I have said before, some of them do not go far enough for me, but we must be realistic about the coalition for change that it is possible to build in the Agriculture Council.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has said that £200 million is available to me because of an underspend on sheep annual premium, but that is not the case. If that money were available to me at no cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer, there would be no sensible reason for me not to take it. It is not available.
I recognise that the real problem on the hills at the moment is in the beef sector, given that last year sheep producers had a record year for the price of their lambs. This year, beef producers will benefit directly from £450 million of support. In addition, over the next couple of years we shall spend £2 billion dealing with the consequences of BSE. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has not made any unrealistic demands for cash, but I put it to him that there is a limit to how much the taxpayer can spend on these problems. The answer is to restructure the beef sector.

Mr. Jack: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the answer that he has just given, in which he dismissed


the claim that I made in the debate on Tuesday that there was an underspend on the sheep annual premium? Will he confirm that he has received advice that there is an underspend on that budget? Will he also confirm that, in the light of that underspend, if he were to maintain the current levels of spending on hill livestock compensatory allowances, he would not breach his Department's public expenditure survey limits, which have already been set? If he cannot defend the interests of hill farmers—who are some of the hardest pressed farmers in this country—by giving me a positive answer, will he confirm that the truth of the matter is that the Treasury already has the money?

Dr. Cunningham: The truth of the matter is that that was the same rubbish that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday evening. I can confirm that the sheep annual premium is a demand-led scheme and is fully funded by the European Community. We make estimates of expenditure under the scheme, but there is no specific provision for that. To suggest that, because there may be less in sheep annual premium this year than last year, the difference is available to me to use for hill livestock compensatory allowances is absurd nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, let me tell him that hill farmers know it and they know that he is bogusly trying to raise a scare.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister referred to the priority that he is giving to reform of the common agricultural policy. Will he enlighten us on the ways in which that reform could take place? Does he acknowledge that one way would be to reduce headage payments and to spend more money on agri-environmental schemes? Are the Government of the view that that is one way forward?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the positive opportunities for reform that we should grasp. We should decouple CAP expenditure from production. I should like to see reductions in support—with, I emphasise, transitional support for farmers—so that we move towards market prices for commodities. We should transfer some of those resources into agri-environment schemes and into rural economies generally.
It is obvious that expenditure on agriculture and farming alone will never solve the problems of rural areas, the uplands or anywhere else. We must take other measures. It is also obvious that the policies pursued by the previous Administration for 18 years, far from solving the problems of rural areas and uplands, made them worse. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need new policies: he is absolutely right.

Meat Hygiene Service

Mr. Michael J. Foster: What steps he is taking to improve the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [12610]

Dr. John Cunningham: My first priority is to safeguard the health and well being of consumers, and the Meat Hygiene Service is in absolutely no doubt of that.

Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What steps does he intend to take to raise

consumer confidence in standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses, and when does he intend to publish individual hygiene scores?

Dr. Cunningham: We have taken a significant number of steps to improve consumer confidence in the hygiene and safety of meat in general and beef in particular. We shall publish individual hygiene assessment scores from January next year. We have taken action to remove dirty livestock from the food chain; contaminated carcases must never be passed as fit for human consumption; we are providing additional training for Meat Hygiene Service staff; we have stepped up attendance at plants, particularly those with low hygiene scores; and we have given a wider role to principal official veterinary surgeons as circuit supervisors of plant-based hygiene and inspection teams. In those and other ways, we are concentrating and focusing on driving up hygiene standards in the meat industry.

Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister agree that the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service in York—in conjunction with the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton in my constituency—has been an outstanding success? Will he take this opportunity to say that the jobs and prospects of staff at both establishments will be protected when he creates his Food Standards Agency?

Dr. Cunningham: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last Administration's decision to establish the Meat Hygiene Service was a good one. It has worked: it has improved the efficiency of the system. [Interruption.] I am saying that it was a good idea. It is rather churlish of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to protest when I am agreeing with one decision made by his Administration. I am telling his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the service has improved efficiency and is an excellent feature of our determination to drive up hygiene standards. It has an assured future: responsibility for it will pass to the Food Standards Agency, and we have no intention of moving it from York.

Food Safety

Mr. Bradshaw: What measures the Government are taking to ensure that the British public have confidence in his Department's statements about food safety. [12611]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Our clear priority is to put food safety first. We are looking towards the creation of an independent Food Standards Agency, which was a clear manifesto commitment, and we shall publish a White Paper very soon.

Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that consumer confidence in this country will be severely shaken if the World Trade Organisation succeeds in its current attempt to overthrow the European Union ban on imports of beef from America containing hormones that we all know cause cancer? Will he assure the House that he will join his colleagues in the European Union to fight the World Trade Organisation and the Americans tooth and nail?

Mr. Rooker: The World Trade Organisation rules allow Governments to choose the appropriate level of


protection for their citizens, which is absolutely right. What they do not allow are restrictions on trade which are not scientifically justified or are in themselves discriminatory. The hormones case is still going through the disputes procedure. We shall be looking for an outcome that protects consumers and their rights while respecting the sound scientific principles on which the WTO rules are based, without which there would be international chaos.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that public health safety will be the primary object of the new food safety organisation, and that it will have its primary remit in the best scientific evidence that is available at the time?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to both questions is yes.

Mr. Dawson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the E. coli outbreak in my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre? The victims have fortunately recovered, and the firm involved has been completely exonerated and has operated in a very responsible manner. It seems that the problem related to the use of unpasteurised milk. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to future policy regarding the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese-making?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I am aware of the recent outbreak in my hon. Friend's constituency. The outbreak control team met this morning. It has carried out a risk assessment of the factory and its products and has decided that there is no justification for extending the action taken in respect of unpasteurised milk cheese to other cheeses produced by that factory. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department of Health left for Lancashire this morning and should arrive there by early afternoon, although they are not part of the outbreak control team. I am moving to bring English policy on the drinking of raw, unpasteurised milk into line with that which has been in place in Scotland for many years, but
I have no plans to do that in respect of cheese.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the Official Report of yesterday afternoon's Committee proceedings on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order? We looked carefully at the issue of fish safety and people's attitude to health issues relating to its consumption. Is the Minister aware that 293 square miles of the Moray firth have been banned to fishermen and that this dates from the first report of oil pollution on 28 August? At one point, it was 150 tonnes. It was then downgraded to 100 tonnes and subsequently moved up to 685 tonnes of oil pollution. It is sad that, in yesterday's Committee debate, the Government showed little sense of reality on the question of how to deal with long-term issues affecting co-operation by the oil and fishing industries to ensure that both industries are safe.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady raises an important point which was not dealt with by the Ministry at yesterday's meeting of the Committee. Nevertheless, I am aware of the general issues that she rightly raises and I will write to her on the detailed points.

Battery Hens

Ann Clwyd: What steps he is taking to further the welfare of battery hens. [12612]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The welfare of laying hens is a matter of concern which needs to be resolved at EU level. This is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the current controls. We expect these amendments to recognise the need to plan the long-term phasing out of the conventional battery system.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend, with his commitment to animal welfare, of the cruel conditions in which battery hens live. They are unable to stretch their wings, to peck or to scratch, and they are not even able to make nests in which to lay their eggs. What action does he intend to take on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, which calls for the phasing out of battery cages and for further research on alternatives to that very cruel method of raising hens?

Mr. Morley: The Government have welcomed the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on laying hens. We are also commissioning research into supporting alternative systems and dealing with the welfare problems of each system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address the issue during the UK presidency to seek improvements to battery systems in the short term.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in the welfare of animals and of battery hens in particular? Does he further agree that this must be a matter for the EU and that we must have a common standard throughout? Does he also agree that the answer to the welfare of hens in a battery system is down to good husbandry and that the number of eggs that are required in this country for catering and for private consumption cannot be supplied by free-range or barn systems? In addition, housewives cannot afford such eggs. Will he present a common-sense solution to the problem and ensure that, with good husbandry, the product can be afforded by the majority of Britain's families?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue must be approached on a Europe-wide basis; otherwise our producers would be undermined without welfare gain in relation to the eggs on shop shelves. Retailers such as Marks and Spencer have announced that they will no longer stock any eggs except those from free range systems. Undoubtedly consumer demand and quality assurance schemes from retailers are already driving change in that area.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on the common fisheries policy. [12613]

Mr. Morley: I have received many recent representations on the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister do all he possibly can to reverse the decline of the inshore fishery? Is he aware that


many fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea feel that sole and plaice quota has been lost to flag ships and that that imbalance has failed to be addressed by underpinning? Will he finally ensure that EC directive 2141/70 article 39(i) is adhered to, as it will help fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea and those people who eat the fish in Basildon?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member makes a serious point about the pressures on the inshore fishing industry, and Ministers are committed to supporting that sector of the industry. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the discussions that, as he is aware, are taking place on a change towards fixed quota allocation the Government will ensure that the needs of the inshore industry are protected and recognised by continued underpinning of quota and, in relation to directive EC 2141/70, by support for the inshore industry through schemes such as PESCA and harbour grants. The industries in that area are eligible for such schemes. They can make an application, and of course we shall treat each application on its merits as part of our support for the fishing industry.

Mr. Andrew George: While I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister at the recent meeting of European Ministers to ensure that the most humane methods are employed to prosecute various fisheries throughout Europe, will he recognise, as I do, that many fishermen have chosen to employ other methods which take them away from the quota system, and will he respond to requests that compensation be afforded to the very few tuna drift net fishermen who will be damaged by any measures to ban their fishery so as to assist them to retrain and invest in other forms of fishery and remain off quota?

Mr. Morley: At the Fisheries Council last week, I made it clear that, under the United Kingdom presidency, the British Government will progress with proposals which have been lying on the table since 1992 to phase out high seas drift nets in EU waters, especially because of the impact on dolphins and non-target species. I also said then that we realised that this would have an impact on those fishermen who are involved in that fishery, and of course their interests and needs will be taken into consideration. I have already received representations from Mike Townsend of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who has argued the interests of his members very strongly.

Mr. Jack: Will the Minister confirm that, due to the Prime Minister's failure in negotiating the Amsterdam treaty, that treaty contains no legal protection for British fishermen threatened as a result of quota hopping? Can he also confirm that what was negotiated in the form of an exchange of letters between Commission President Santer and the Prime Minister amounts in effect to nothing more than is already contained in category A licences as far as landings are concerned?
Can the Minister explain why, although he has been in conversation with the fishing industry since August about matters of enforcement and quota hopping, the industry is still waiting for a definitive statement of Government policy on these vital matters? Is that not a vivid illustration of the fact that his policy is a shambles?

Mr. Morley: The Conservative Government put forward totally bogus proposals to deal with quota

hopping. They made proposals to try to deal with the issue in the intergovernmental conference, knowing that just one country could veto those proposals. Not only that, but not one other country supported the Government's position. We have made more progress to deal with quota hopping in six months than the Conservative Government made in their last decade in office. We shall make announcements about our policy on the fishing industry in due course, but we have been undertaking a proper consultation with the fishing industry to obtain its views and to involve it in decisions in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

Cattle Breeders

6. Mr. Swayne: What representations he has received from breeders of traditional native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth. [12614]

Mr. Rooker: I have received a small number of representations from breeders of such animals.

Mr. Swayne: Is the Minister aware that ecologists agree that the best way to maintain the unique character of the New Forest is to have it grazed by suckler cows? Is he also aware that, because of the quality of the ground, such beasts will be in their third year before they can be sold as store? Will he therefore distance himself from the disgraceful remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday when he accused farmers of cheating on the schemes for compensation for BSE?

Mr. Rooker: I will attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's question of substance, because there is a genuine problem for breeders of native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth such as Galloway, Welsh black and Highland. The beef assurance scheme was fixed up so that such cattle can come to market at between 30 and 42 months. I regret that there are only 73 registered members of that scheme, so it has not been a success. That does not meet the issues raised in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it meets those raised in his original question of substance.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is completely right to say that it is a genuine problem. Will the Ministry take into account not only any romantic advantage of Highland or other special breeds but their value to the gene pool? Will the Ministry look at the issue from the point of view of long-term genetic advantage to the British cattle herd?

Mr. Rooker: I do not know how many of the 73 herds in the scheme are in Scotland, but my hon. Friend's point is correct. One of the reasons for the beef assurance scheme was to ensure that farmers with special breeds did not suffer and that the nation did not suffer by losing those breeds.

Mr. Paice: Does the Minister accept that the three breeds that he just cited are all hill breeds? Is it not absolute drivel for the Minister to suggest that the problems of hill farming are related purely to the beef ban? Does he not know or even care that the prices of fat cattle, store cattle and lambs are now much lower than they were 12 months ago, which was well after the ban was introduced? Does he not know that the prices of store


cattle and sheep are now lower than when he took responsibility for the industry? Is it not true that that is because of the Government's policy of keeping sterling so high, which is destroying our sheep exports and encouraging beef imports? What will he do now about the proposals to end the intervention for beef, which would only mean more imports into this country and even lower cattle prices for our native breeds and all others?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we are not living in a market economy.

Diet and Nutrition

Mr. Cousins: What assessment he has made of variations in diet and nutrition between the regions of England; and what role the Food Standards Agency will have to investigate them. [12616]

Mr. Rooker: The Department assesses regional variations in the diet of the British population using the continuous national food survey and, with the Department of Health, the national diet and nutrition survey programme.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister agree that the consumption of fruit, vegetables and salad is lower in the northern region of England than in other parts of England? Does he agree that that is a matter not just of individual choice but of social exclusion from good diet because people find themselves on low incomes, with no cars and facing high-cost food? Will he assure the House that the Food Standards Agency will do some proactive work and contribute to the Government's policy on social exclusion so that diet is also considered when we talk about social exclusion?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right to say that the consumption of certain foods varies on a regional basis. More up-to-date figures will be published on 10 November in the next national food survey. A special analysis of regional data is contained in that report.
On my hon. Friend's second point, the Food Standards Agency will play a key role in advising on nutrition and diet issues, working with the Department of Health. That will be made abundantly clear in the White Paper later this month.

Mr. Paterson: As there is a variation in the incidence of tuberculosis in badgers in the different regions of Britain, can the Minister say whether the Government have any policy on that matter? Farms have been closed—

Madam Speaker: Order. This question does not relate to badgers; it is about nutrition in the regions.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does the Minister accept that an important element in nutrition can be vitamin supplements? Is he aware of the dismay among many alternative and complementary medical practitioners and nutritionists about the ban on over-10 mg vitamin B6? Does he accept that, across the industry, most people believe that 100 mg is perfectly safe? Is not the advice that the hon. Gentleman has accepted fundamentally flawed, having been based on a 10-year-old survey largely

dealing with animals? Much more recent information is now available. Will he reconsider the matter, which is causing much concern among those who are trying to improve the health of the nation?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point, but I invite him to re-read the further information that he has received—as, indeed, has every hon. Member. The advice was not taken on the basis of one scientific paper—more than 100 have been assessed.
The point that needs to be made abundantly clear to everyone, especially those outside the House, is that in respect of dietary supplements we are acting on the basis of food law. If people want to take them on health grounds, there is health law covering that, but I am not dealing with that.

Radioactive Material (Dumping At Sea)

Mr. Hanson: If he will make a statement on progress into investigations into the dumping of radioactive material at sea. [12617]

Mr. Rooker: The searches to identify any unrecognised dumping of radioactive waste at sea have now been completed, apart from those at the Ministry of Defence, where they are unlikely to be completed this year, I regret. Only one further instance of such dumping has been identified in addition to those I announced in July this year. This concerns the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators by the Royal Air Force in the Holyhead deep in 1974.
The details of that disposal have been passed to the National Radiological Protection Board and have been included in its independent assessment of all the disposals. I expect to receive the board's report and to announce its findings very shortly.
We have throughout kept fully informed all the territorial Departments of Government, as well as the Government of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Jack: That was a statement

Mr. Rooker: The question asked for a statement.

Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend both for his comments today and for his statement in July. That brought to light, for the first time, unacceptable practices undertaken under previous Governments to dump radioactive material at sea—including in Liverpool bay, off the north Wales coast, near my constituency.
Will my hon. Friend continue with open government and bring forward any relevant proposals? When the board's recommendations are made and the details are known, will he put them before the House so that we can understand what happened under previous Governments?

Mr. Rooker: The matter will be dealt with openly, and the report published.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the Minister aware that radioactive contamination at sea also comes from nuclear establishments? Is he further aware that, as recently as


October, contamination from the Dounreay plant resulted in the closure of a nearby fishery, which, to my knowledge, is still closed?

Mr. Rooker: I am aware of that. One reason why that contamination was discovered was the constant surveillance of our seashore for contaminants. It is a crucial and continuing process. Action will be taken when contaminants are found.

Beef

Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement about the level of confidence of the British public in British beef. [12618]

Mr. O'Hara: What steps he is taking to improve confidence in British beef. [12619]

13. Mr. Beith: If he will make a statement about the current state of the beef sector. [12622]

Dr. John Cunningham: Numerous Government initiatives have helped to secure significant improvements in the beef consumption level, indicating a return of consumer confidence. However, the European beef sector remains in long-term structural surplus. The Government are pressing for fundamental reform of the EU beef regime through negotiations on the Commission's agenda 2000 proposals.

Mr. Pickthall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he go on to tell us whether he detects greater confidence in British beef among our European partners, and how that confidence might be manifested in policy or regulation changes?

Dr. Cunningham: We have been working hard to re-establish confidence not only in British beef but in the British Government's contribution to open and constructive dialogue in the affairs of the European Union, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Two of our proposals are now under consideration in Brussels to lift partially the ban on British beef. The first is the certified herd scheme, and the second is the date-based scheme. It will be for the various committees of the Brussels Commission to make decisions on those schemes. I keep urging them to press ahead, without further delay.

Mr. O'Hara: The over-30-months scheme is one of the measures that has contributed greatly to raising confidence in British beef, but it has many faults. Will the Minister conduct an investigation into the scheme's workings, with particular reference to geographical distribution of abattoirs in the scheme? Apart from the commercial implications of uneven and inequitable distribution of abattoirs, there is an animal welfare consideration. Cattle—particularly casualty cattle—are having to travel unnecessarily long distances to slaughter.

Dr. Cunningham: Administration of the scheme is dealt with by the Intervention Board executive agency. However, abattoirs have been chosen on the basis of competitive tender, hygiene performance and geographical location. I realise that the over-30-months

scheme is not universally popular and that there are some problems with it—not least that it is one of the single most expensive schemes in which we are engaged in dealing with the BSE crisis. I will reflect on what my hon. Friends have to say. As I have made clear to the House, however, detailed administration of the scheme is a matter not for me but for the Intervention Board.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that beef farmers in Northumberland have had animals transported from Northumberland to Cornwall for slaughter under the scheme and also face those transport costs? Does he realise that those beef farmers are also facing continued competition from imported beef, which still does not have to meet the standards that we set for our own beef product? Today, he has already admitted that hill beef farmers are facing particular difficulties. Does he realise that those difficulties are relevant to his decisions about hill livestock compensatory allowances?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I recognise the first problem mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, because he wrote to me about it. I said that I thought that that type of situation was clearly unsatisfactory, and that it should also be unnecessary.
As for beef imports, the House will recall that I made it clear both in the Chamber and in Brussels that, if the European Union Council of Ministers did not act to apply a uniform policy on removal of specified risk materials in beef across the entire European Union, I would act unilaterally to prevent imports from the European Union that had not been so treated into the United Kingdom. We were successful in winning on that issue in the negotiation by a single vote.
In July, however, I made it clear that it would be necessary for me to make a concession to win that vote. The concession was that implementation would take effect not on 1 October 1997—as it would have done had I acted unilaterally—but from 1 January 1998. That concession was necessary to win the argument in the Council by eight votes to seven.
I know that, for a very long time, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has represented hundreds, if not thousands, of hill beef farmers. I have represented many such farmers, although for a slightly longer time. We both know the problems very well. I say again that, this year, there will be £450 million-worth of direct support for farmers in the beef sector, and that we are spending colossal sums in trying to resolve the problems that they face, particularly from BSE. The solution to the problem is not more subsidy, as Conservative Members seem to think, but to solve the problems that are of their creation—first, BSE—and of over-capacity in Europe's beef sector.

Mrs. Spelman: Given that red meat consumption has fallen by 25 per cent. in the past 20 years and yet, in the same period, the incidence of colon cancer has increased by 20 per cent., will the Minister explain why he has given his full support to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report which recommends a further reduction in red meat consumption? Is not that one more nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom's red meat industry, which is already in crisis?

Dr. Cunningham: The COMA report has not been published in full, so I advise the hon. Lady to wait and


see what it says. If the Government appoint independent scientific committees—the previous Government did the same—to assess risk to people in respect of health and other matters, those committees sometimes reach uncomfortable conclusions. There is no point in our wishing away those conclusions because that simply destroys the integrity and independence of such committees.

Mr. Nicholls: It is not going to be possible to restore confidence in British beef if there are no British beef producers left. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his failure to match the previous Government's commitment to make a payment of £60 million—indeed, he intends to reduce it—has caused real fear and terror among hill farmers? Does he not understand that to sneer that hill farmers are one of the less efficient sectors of the British industry, as he did earlier in these exchanges, means that he is devastating a vital part of our agricultural community and, at the same time, making it abundantly clear that he has no idea of the role that hill farmers play, not only in British beef production as a whole but environmentally? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman's deeds matched his rhetoric?

Dr. Cunningham: One abiding reason that the House can rarely, if ever, take the hon. Gentleman seriously is that he has only one mode, and that is always over the top. Given the location of his constituency and mine, I suspect that I have far more regular contact, and on a much wider basis, with hill farmers than he ever does. He asked why I have not matched in the coming year the previous Government's commitment to support for HLCAs—the answer is that I have. We are working on the same proposals as the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Race Hatred

Mr. Gapes: How many prosecutions his office has sanctioned for incitement to racial hatred; and how many it has decided not to pursue in each year since 1990. [12640]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1990, 41 consents have been granted for prosecution of incitement to racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Five applications for consent have been refused and one has been withdrawn. I am arranging for a breakdown to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Attorney-General share the widespread concern felt by people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds about the dissemination of race-hate and anti-Semitic material, which is being widely distributed? Will he assure the House that the Government will do far more than their predecessors to act rigorously and with determination to take legal action against the producers of such material?

The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will act vigorously to ensure that the behaviour that

he describes, which I am sure the whole House regards as repulsive, is dealt with. I hope that the police will continue vigorously to investigate any allegations of incitement to racial hatred. Where such inquiries result in submission of a file to the Crown Prosecution Service and where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the public interest will almost invariably justify proceedings, and I will accordingly give my consent.

Mr. Burnett: The Government have announced their intention to provide extra penalties for a guilty party when racism is proved as a motivation for a crime. In order that the appropriate evidence may be gathered, what training resources and practice guidelines will be given to the police to secure a tangible result?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made proposals to introduce new offences of racial violence. In my professional experience, the Court of Appeal has long said that such matters should be taken into account by sentencing judges. I am sure that the enshrining of such matters in statute will be welcome. The primary duty to investigate such complaints lies with the police, who will approach the problem vigorously, although so far the majority of identification has, successfully, been in the hands of the CPS.

Mr. Grieve: In the first question to the Attorney-General, the suggestion was made that past Governments had been dilatory in prosecuting in racial hatred cases. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service—ultimately, they are matters for the Attorney-General, but they are usually taken by the CPS—and involve no political input?

The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a quasi-judicial function of my office. In the earlier years, from 1990, only two or three such consents were granted each year, but since 1995 there has been a rising curve, with seven in that year and numbers in double figures thereafter. Our best hope is that such matters will not arise, but if they do they will be approached quasi-judicially.

Lenient Sentences

Mr. Flynn: What plans he has to extend the period allowed for appeals against apparently lenient sentences. [12641]

The Attorney-General: The statutory time for an application for leave to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency is 28 days. That is mandatory and cannot be extended. That strict time limit was imposed to meet the concern that it would be intolerable if those whose sentences were subject to a procedure had to endure a long period of uncertainty about whether it would be used. Any consideration given to extending the time limit would need to take account of those concerns, as well as the practical implications of any other changes in the regime.

Mr. Flynn: The concerns of convicted murderers or other offenders obviously have to be taken into account,


but should we not also consider the anxiety and anger of the families of those who have suffered? I brought before the Attorney-General a murder case in which an apparently lenient sentence was given. The short period in which the processes have to be undertaken means that a decision often has to be made in the final hours of the final day. Is it not true that rushed judgments are often poor judgments?

The Attorney-General: I have explained why there has to be a balance. There was great concern when the proposal was first brought into operation. Time is short, as I am sure my predecessor would be the first to agree. There are often only days for consideration perhaps only hours in some cases, although in only a few, I hope. However, the cases are considered in time. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to disseminate the information that 28 days are available from sentence.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Yeo: What are the current staffing levels of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [12646]

The Attorney-General: On 30 September 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the full-time equivalent of 1,975.5 lawyers and 3,612 other staff, the majority of whom are case workers supporting lawyers at branch level to prepare cases for court.

Mr. Yeo: Is the Attorney-General aware that unless there is an immediate and substantial increase in Crown Prosecution Service staffing levels, his Government's much-vaunted aim of speeding up the workings of the criminal justice system will be just one more item on the ever-growing list of Labour's broken promises?

The Attorney-General: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of recalling that we stated during the election campaign that we would put to the people—as we did successfully—the policy that in at least our first couple of years in office, we would operate within the spending constraints laid down by the previous Government. Within that policy, Sir lain Glidewell is conducting his review and I am sure that he will point out any difficulties that arise from the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Dismore: I visited my local Crown Prosecution Service branch during the summer and found there a highly motivated group of people working hard, obviously in trying circumstances. I was very pleased that when I raised a specific case, the service was prepared to review its decision and to agree to prosecute a case that it had previously not prosecuted. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's point about the review by Sir lain Glidewell. When will it be completed?

The Attorney-General: On the first matter, I welcome very much my hon. Friend's visit to his area office of the CPS. I hope that all hon. Members, when they were given the branch reports during the summer, were invited to visit their area office, and I hope that those visits were carried out.
I am glad to know that the Crown Prosecution Service listened to my hon. Friend's representations. Ultimately, however, the service has to have regard to the independence of the prosecutor in reaching its determination. On the last matter, I hope very much that Sir lain Glidewell's report will be published in the new year.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: 1 welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said about the motivation and good quality of the Crown Prosecution Service in his area. In light of the Attorney-General's decision to put more senior staff into the front line in the sense of having 43 chief Crown prosecutors—one for each police area—is he satisfied that he has sufficient staff to carry out other functions, such as caring properly for victims and witnesses, about which I am sure he would have told us if he had had the opportunity? That requires not only motivation but staff, including support staff, to assist the Crown prosecutors in court on the day. In that context, will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is somewhere for victims and witnesses to be cared for when the time comes?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Victim support has a high priority. I am sure that, if there are deficiencies in the CPS in terms of staff, Sir lain Glidewell and his review team will point them out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced only recently that there will be additional money available for victim support. These are matters of great importance. Frequently, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are practical problems in ensuring that witnesses are properly informed and properly cared for in the courts. The Lord Chancellor is fully aware of that and of the importance of carrying out obligations under the victims charter. The CPS plays an important role, with the police, in ensuring that those obligations are carried out.

Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to introduce local accountability in respect of the prosecution policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. [12647]

The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is already exposed to substantial local scrutiny. Each branch, for example, now publishes its own annual report, commencing for the calendar year 1996. We are taking the process further through the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer, which touches on management if not accountability. Does he, however, understand the dismay and frustration of communities, such as those in the Martock and Wincanton areas of my constituency, when high-profile police action takes place and the result is either a decision not to prosecute or, worse still, no decision on whether to prosecute after more than 12 months? Does he agree that there is a need for far greater transparency and far greater local accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service?

The Attorney-General: Matters involving the police are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.


As regards local accountability, I hope very much that the reports that were published in the hon. Gentleman's area in July set out and put in the shop window the activities of the CPS in his area for the past year. He is concerned with local accountability. I know that he was invited, with all other hon. Members representing the south-west—and, it is to be hoped, other areas as well—to visit his CPS branch in July. So far, I fear that he has not replied. I hope he will do so fairly quickly.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service—in which I declare a family interest—is very much dependent on the quality of the people employed in it? The quality is undoubtedly very high. If we are to have consistency between one area and another, we must obviously have a central and not a local direction.

The Attorney-General: The people at the coal face carry the primary responsibility to the public, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who tabled the question is concerned with something greater. Whether the CPS should be a national service and whether there should be local scrutiny in the form of committees,

such as a watch committee or a police committee, was debated in the House. The Philips report on that was rejected because it was felt that the paramount consideration should be the independence of the prosecutor as part of a national service.

Mr. Greenway: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just confirmed the central point about which I wanted to ask him. Will he therefore assure the House that, in whatever changes his Government decide to implement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS, its independence from local pressures will remain the central point of its operations?

The Attorney-General: I took part in the debate when the Crown Prosecution Service was set up, and made loud and clear my view that there were difficulties as regards local accountability, which were enumerated by example. It is important that local communities are aware of what is happening. It is important that there is liaison at the highest level locally with the chief constable. It is important that local communities can discuss and debate whatever is happening—hence, I hope, as an input into the public domain, the branch reports. Further than that I will not go.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual morning debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons on a motion to approve the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
FRIDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th allotted day] [first part].
Debate until about 7 pm on a subject to be decided by the Liberal Democrats, which will be announced next week.
Motion to approve the eighth report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual morning debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill [first day].
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which we originally scheduled for Thursday next week. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Debate on the review of civil justice and legal aid on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 12 November, there will be a debate on landfill waste sites in European Standing Committee A. On Wednesday 19 November, there will be a debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: controls on cattle, sheep and goats, in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on the draft general budget for 1998 in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 12 November:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 6692/97, Landfill Waste Sites. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-iii (1997–98).

Wednesday 19 November:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 10047/97, TSE: Prohibition of Risk Material.

Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 155-iii (1997–98) and HC 155-iv (1997–98).

European Standing B—Relevant European Community Document: 10153/97, Draft General Budget 1998. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-iv (1997–98)

Thursday 2 November:

Public Accounts Committee Reports, Session 1996–97.


Report No:
Title
HC No.
Publication Date


1
The office of Gas Supply: The Regulation of Gas Tariffs (The Gas Cost Index)
37
14 November


2
Progress in Completing the New British Library
38
20 November


3
The Sale of the Mining Operations of the British Coal Corporation
60
21 November


4
The Construction of Quarry House
69
27 November


5
Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme
83
28 November


6
The Audit of European Community Transactions
84
4 December


7
The Hospital Information Support Systems Initiative
97
5 December


8
Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing The Service Delivery Operations
98
11 December


9
Resource Accounting and Proposals for a Resource-based System of Supply
167
15 January


10
Excess Vote NI DHSS

19 February


11
Excess Votes Classes I, IV, VII, XIII, XIV, XVII (7&13)
293
13 February


12
ODA: Turkish Universities Equipment Project
70
27 February


13
H M Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen
151
6 March


14
Dept for Education & Employment: Financial Control of Payments made under the Training for Work and Youth Training Programmes in England
61
13 March


15
The Award of the First Three Passenger Rail Franchises
39
13 March


16
Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply: The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply
89
19 March


17
Health of the Nation: A Progress Report
85
20 March


18
National Savings: Financial Reporting
214
25 March


19
Former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
432
26 March

Report No:
Title
HC No.
Publication Date


20
Payments to the National Lottery Distribution Fund
99
27 March


21
The Management of Space in Higher Education Institutions in Wales
159
2 April


22
British Rail Maintenance Limited: The Sale of Maintenance Depots
168
3 April


23
Ministry of Defence: The Financial Management of the Military Operation in the Former Yugoslavia
242
4 April


24
Department of Transport: Freight Facilities Grants in England
284
8 April


25
Plymouth Development Corporation: Regularity Propriety and Control of Expenditure
450
8 April


REPLIES



Treasury Minute on the First to Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3559
12 February 1997



Treasury Minute on the Ninth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3577
12 March 1997



Treasury Minute on the Twelfth to Twenty-Fifth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97
CM 3714
16 July 1997

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. She will doubtless recall that last week my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked for a debate on the Government's policy on higher education. Despite two such debates this week and despite the Prime Minister's frantic consultation of his briefing notes yesterday, it became clear from his inability to answer a simple question on the matter that he does not understand Government policy on higher education.
Will she arrange for another debate, at a time when the Prime Minister can attend, so that he can grasp what is perfectly clear to the rest of us—that his policy will mean that Scottish and European Union students at Scottish universities have their fourth-year fees met from public funds, while English, Welsh and Northern Irish students do not? He will then be better equipped than he was yesterday to explain precisely how the situation that that policy has created contributes to his manifesto pledge of equal opportunity for all.
Will the right hon. Lady also arrange for an early debate on the Government's policy on the tobacco industry's sponsorship of sport? May we have an explanation from the Secretary of State for Health of the criteria applied by the Minister for Public Health in deciding that formula one racing should be exempted from the Government's much-vaunted ban on tobacco sponsorship? Was that decision based on the fact that formula one racing is more popular than angling, healthier than cricket or more accessible to many than darts—or were other considerations taken into account? In the interests of open government, we should be told.
May we have an early debate on open government, so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Minister responsible for open government, can come out

of hiding to expand on his remarks to local media, reported in The Times on 20 October, that he is being forced out of office by a smear campaign conducted by a senior colleague? Such a debate would also enable him to explain to the House why he needed trips to the United States, Canada and Australasia to study open government. After all, his party's manifesto pledges should have meant that by now he was a member of one.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I really do think that the right hon. Lady's final remarks are ridiculous, coming from a member of Government who took no steps whatever in the direction of open government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement in the House when he presents the White Paper on freedom of information, and I am sure that many hon. Members look forward to that.
On the subject of higher education, the right hon. Lady is right that we have had two debates recently, during which we heard no constructive suggestions from the Conservative party on how to deal with the problems in higher education that we inherited. If she is interested in the matter, she will be aware that education Question Time is next week, so any outstanding issues can be dealt with—not that there will be many.
The position on formula one sponsorship has been made clear, not least by the Prime Minister yesterday. Formula one is a genuinely global sport and it relies on tobacco advertising much more than any other sport, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said back in June and July when the issue was first considered. A European Union ban of the type suggested would lead to alternative circuits in other parts of the world taking the sport, and British viewers would still see it on television. Any ban imposed would thus be circumvented.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to return to the issue of higher education, which was raised by the shadow Leader of the House? What kind of legislative vehicle do the Government intend to use for the introduction of tuition fees? Will primary or secondary legislation be required? Irrespective of the vehicle to be used, will she give a firm guarantee that there will be a full and frank debate—preferably a full-day debate—in the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I think that primary legislation will be required. Therefore, there will be a Second Reading debate which, I would imagine, will be a full debate, as is normal.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we, at least, supported the previous policy on tobacco sponsorship of formula one, and we agree very much with the EU Social Affairs Commissioner who has said that the Government's decision is a disaster and a complete U-turn? We would welcome a statement.
An equally important issue is the fate of rape victims in court, to which the Home Secretary referred in a BBC interview this morning. When can we expect a statement on the legislation to be introduced? How quickly can it be introduced? May we be assured that the Home Secretary will not be as dilatory as the previous Government were in trying to deal with this serious problem?
Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a debate as soon as the Public Accounts Commission has considered the evidence of the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, who yesterday outlined the appalling level of bungling which all of us, as constituency Members, are still experiencing with that agency?
Finally, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice earlier in the week that the Government are actively considering our representations that there should be a full inquiry into not just the last 18 months of the BSE crisis, but the way in which it developed under the previous Government. When will we get an announcement on that inquiry?

Mrs. Taylor: To take the last point first, the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said earlier in the week, and I have nothing to add to that.
On tobacco sponsorship, as I said a few moments ago, there is little point in having a ban that is counter-productive. If we drive the sport out of this country, people will still see the adverts on television because the pictures cannot be blocked.
I do not think that we can have a debate in the very near future on the important issue of rape victims, but we have made progress on the matter. The Home Secretary announced in June that he was establishing an urgent review to ensure that all vulnerable or intimidated witnesses received better treatment from the criminal justice system. That working group is taking evidence and we hope that it will be able to report to Ministers by the end of the year. Further statements will follow from that.
On the PAC and the inquiries into the CSA, I should be surprised if there is any hon. Member who has not experienced considerable difficulty in trying to pursue CSA cases on behalf of constituents. It is an appalling situation, and obviously there are very deep problems which will take some time to resolve.

Mr. Paul Flynn: There will be a warm welcome for today's announcement on the reduction in the number of animals killed in laboratories in Britain, but there will be some disappointment that the total of 3 million animals killed every year will be reduced by a mere couple of hundred. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that this complex matter can be discussed? Has she seen early-day motion 342?

[That this House notes with dismay that 400,000 animals are killed every year just to provide body parts for medical research when many scientists agree that test-tube studies using donated human tissue give more reliable results, but that lack of availability prevents its widespread use; urges that donated human tissue be used wherever possible to save animals and achieve more accurate results; and calls upon the Government to establish and co-ordinate a national network of human tissue banks to overcome the shortage of suitable human tissue and to introduce a new donor card that gives the public the option of donating organs for transplantation and/or tissue for research.]

A debate would enable us, as a superior species, to decide that it is unacceptable for us to treat sentient living creatures as if they were jars of chemicals in experiments designed not to improve human health, but to increase the profits of commercial industries.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, although I cannot promise an early debate. He is right to say that there is a great deal of public concern about testing on animals, and that is why the statement from the Home Office today about the end to cosmetic testing on animals will be welcomed. My hon. Friend should give credit for the significant step forward that has been made on cosmetic testing.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House next week revisit her answer on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the Finance Bill? I realise that it was an oral answer given in the heat of the moment, but she gave the impression that this year's treatment would become par for the course. That would cause alarm in the City of London.

Mrs. Taylor: Pro rata, this year's Finance Bill had as much time as the Bills of previous years, so I do not think that our treatment of that Bill was unprecedented.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider my request for a Members' cycle allowance yet? Does she think that a debate on Members' travel allowances would be helpful?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that it will be possible to have a debate, but I hope that we can make some progress on the cycle allowance in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House make time next week for a debate on the European Union proposal to do away with duty-free allowances for travel between EU countries? Would it not be an excellent opportunity to put pressure on the Government, before the Luxembourg Council, to get the European Union to do something about that and to change its mind? Otherwise, will not the measure have an adverse affect on British carriers, particularly those operating out of Heathrow, which is the borough in which my constituency lies, and on many enterprises such as the British Airports Authority and others with duty-free shops that provide badly needed employment?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made his point in such a way that he does not need a debate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time between now and Christmas to cause a debate to be held on Government computers, so that we could cause the computers that serve the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue to talk to each otherso that we might know who is in the black economy and who is not-and perhaps at the same —time consider the quality of the Department of Trade and Industry computer, which appears to be giving the wrong answers at present?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there are too many wrong answers, but there was certainly an example last


week when one of my hon. Friends had to correct figures on export licences given during the previous Administration because of computer faults. I understand that that programme has been scrapped.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the working of the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is a well-known fact that a number of Ministers there are disqualified from speaking on certain subjects due to conflicts of interest? May we know who is competent to do what—if any?

Mrs. Taylor: All the Ministers there are extremely competent.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In response to the question from the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about interests, I think that the Tories have got a cheek to be talking about people with interests, when 90 or 100 out of 164 of them have got three and four moonlighting jobs. If we are to have a debate, let us have one about that. On the more important question, because they are a trivial lot, I heard my right hon. Friend refer to the Child Support Agency as being in an appalling mess. That is an interesting phrase from a Minister. I know that a review is taking place and we all know that there are problems, that it has been in operation for five years and that at the beginning it was argued that it would provide benefits for women in particular. We all now know that as many women as men object to the Child Support Act 1995. Can we have an assurance that, perhaps, the idea of scrapping that Act is on the cards?

Mrs. Taylor: No, it is a question not of scrapping the Child Support Agency, but of reviewing its workings. We had a debate just before the summer recess and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said afterwards that she had found it extremely useful to hear directly the experiences of many colleagues in respect of the problems of the CSA. I hope that we can ensure that the agency works more effectively, but, as I said, the problems are very severe indeed. A great backlog of work has not been completed when it should have been and, although my right hon. Friend is trying to resolve the situation, it is difficult to see that it and the problems that are arising can be dealt with in the very near future. It will be a long haul to get the agency back on track.

Mr. Tony Baldry: May we have a debate next week on inward investment? There seems to be some friction between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry about who is to take the lead on the matter. There is the curious concept of a concordat. Is that to be in writing? Will it be promulgated? How will it be umpired if there are disputes? How will problems be resolved within the machinery of government?
Will the Scottish Parliament be responsible for inward investment into Scotland, or the Welsh Assembly for that into Wales? How will all that be reconciled within the machinery of government, especially as there is obvious friction between the Scottish Office and the DTI? It would be helpful to have a debate as soon as possible, so that we could all have a clear understanding of who is doing what.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is a need for an early debate, because there is no such friction. The matter

concerning the Scottish Parliament was dealt with to some extent in the White Paper, and will be dealt with further when a Bill is introduced and we debate it.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to providing time for a debate on the Child Support Agency, bearing in mind two cases in my surgery last week? In the first case, a father has been asked to pay an exorbitant and impractical sum that he clearly cannot afford; in the second, a mother informs me that all her efforts to get maintenance for her child have been to no avail, despite the intervention of the CSA. Is not that an illustration, on both sides, of the CSA simply not working? It is causing tremendous difficulties, despite having been in existence for several years.

Mrs. Taylor: I, too, have cases like those that my hon. Friend described—we all find that a significant proportion of our case work concerns CSA cases—so I have every sympathy with him. However, I am not sure that debating the problems will get us much further. Action is needed within the CSA to get its house in order.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an early debate on the Government's programme for convergence of our economy with those of our European partners, so that we can move as swiftly as the Government want towards a European currency? Such a debate would give the Chancellor the opportunity to explain to the House how today's increase in interest rates contributes to that convergence process.

Mrs. Taylor: The Chancellor dealt more than adequately with all those questions in his recent statement. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the subject, I am sure that many in his own party would be willing to oblige.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information about when legislation for regional development agencies will be introduced, bearing in mind how important that is to the Government? Perhaps the Bill could be introduced in draft form, to allow people to consider it fully, given its implications and the various views that are held on it.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's long-term interest in the legislation. I do not think that it will be possible to introduce the Bill in draft form, but Ministers in the Department intend to introduce a White Paper.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the environment and planning procedure? I cannot believe that my constituency experience is unique. A cement manufacturer applied to the county council for permission for major quarrying work. The council hummed and hawed for more than a year, then passed the matter to the Minister for the Environment, so that either he could approve it or, if he did not want to do so, it would be approved after a five-week stay of execution.
The Minister had the opportunity to hold a public inquiry to allow the people of Clitheroe, Chatburn and Worston, and tourists who come to the Ribble Valley from all over the country, to have their say about the


major impact of a quarry that will take 30 years to dig and will be the size of 28 football pitches, but he did not do so, so the application will be approved by gagging people not only in the Ribble Valley but throughout the country.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case. I do not know the details of the planning application to which he refers, but any procedures followed were those drawn up by the previous Conservative Government.

Ms Gisela Stuart: In view of the incontrovertible evidence, which appeared in The Independent today, of the permanent damage caused by the use of Ecstasy, may we have an early debate on the subject?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a problem which will be of concern to many. The evidence presented today on the dangers of Ecstasy reinforces some of the concerns that have been mentioned in the past. We should welcome any contribution to the body of scientific knowledge on the dangers of such drugs. In recent years, about 60 deaths in the UK have been due specifically to Ecstasy. The only message that we can send out is that young people should not be taking such drugs.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate, or at least a statement, on the time that Ministers take to reply, or give full replies, to hon. Members' questions? I understand that Departments try to answer such letters within 15 working days, but I cannot be alone in having letters outstanding for, in one case, 55 working days and, in another, involving the Treasury, for 47 working days—and still no reply yet. I understand that Ministers receive many letters from hon. Members, but if we are to do our jobs properly, we need to respond to our constituents' concerns rather quicker than that.

Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman gives me details of the replies that are outstanding, I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Martin Salter: After yesterday's crash landing at Heathrow, is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting public concern about aircraft safety, particularly in the Thames valley, following three near misses during the past few months, including one above Reading? Will she allow parliamentary time for us to discuss this important issue and, in particular, the Civil Aviation Authority's hare-brained scheme to reduce the distance between aircraft approaching Heathrow from 3 miles to two and a half miles?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the pilot of the aircraft which was in such difficulties yesterday and which he managed to land safely. It is appalling to think of the tragedy that could have occurred. We should be grateful that he was able to exercise such skill on that occasion.
My hon. Friend raises the problem of near misses, which is obviously an issue of great concern to him and his constituents. I regret that I cannot find time for a

debate on that subject in the near future, but it may be an appropriate subject for a debate on a Wednesday morning, were he fortunate enough to have such an application accepted.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May we have an early statement from the Minister for Public Health to clear up the apparent conflict of interest between her family interests and her decision to exempt formula one motor racing from tobacco advertising?
It is also a matter of concern that the Financial Times was briefed by the Department of Health's press office to say that the issue had been cleared with Lord Nolan. As it happens, Lord Nolan appeared before the Select Committee for Public Administration this morning and when I asked him whether he had any knowledge of that, he said that he had none whatever. He said that the first that he had heard of it was when he read the Financial Times this morning. May we have an urgent statement from the Minister for Public Health to clear up both those matters?

Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to clarify the situation and deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. When my hon. Friend became the Minister for Public Health she did exactly what was expected of her, which was to abide completely by the guidance which is laid down for Ministers. Her husband informed the Department of Health of his professional activities relating to formula one motor racing and, in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest and at his own suggestion, he resigned his position as a non-executive director of Benetton Formula Ltd.
As a result of that experience, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health wrote to Sir Robin Butler on 9 June explaining the arrangements that she had agreed with the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary to ensure that there was no conflict of interest between her official duties and her husband's interests. My hon. Friend wrote that letter to draw Sir Robin's attention to what she perceived was a lack of specific guidance on the private interests of a Minister's spouse in the version of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that had been issued under the previous Government in 1992. That document was being updated at the time, and paragraph 116 of the ministerial code issued in July 1997 covered the point. It draws attention to the need for Ministers to have regard to their spouse's, as well as to their own, private interests. My hon. Friend has been absolutely open, and has obeyed both the letter and the spirit of the code of conduct.

Mr. Phil Hope: As a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the need for an urgent debate on the appalling performance of the Child Support Agency? The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reveals that 85 per cent. of outstanding balances were in error, and one in six of those were errors of more than £1,000. That has caused enormous misery and distress to families throughout the country. I believe that a debate on the Floor of the House would enable hon. Members who deal with these problems to contribute to the change process that is required. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the


agency cannot even find the right files to deal with cases, and said as much to the Public Accounts Committee this week?

Mrs. Taylor: As I said, I cannot promise a debate, but the information that my hon. Friend has conveyed to the House reinforces the concern that many hon. Members have expressed today. The figures are extremely alarming, and I am aware of the significant concern in the House about the matter. The Secretary of State for Social Security shares that concern, and I will ensure that she understands the strength of feeling that has been expressed today. I am sure that she will be reinforced in her determination to tackle this problem.

Mr. Tim Yeo: If the conduct of the Minister for Public Health is irreproachable, why is the Leader of the House so reluctant to grant the House a debate on the important and topical issue of tobacco sponsorship? Such a debate would enable the Government to explain to millions of sports fans why their preferred sport is being treated so much less favourably than motor racing.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against any ban, whereas some of his hon. Friends were almost arguing for a total ban. There seems to be some inconsistency. I do not think that there is any need for an early debate on that topic.

Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention the "two minutes" campaign of the Royal British Legion, and ask her to consult the relevant authorities in the House on whether it would be possible for all Committees to observe two minutes' silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure which Committees will be sitting at that time next Tuesday. I shall make inquiries along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, because I know that all hon. Members consider it to be an important event and may wish to observe two minutes' silence in Committee, as they would if they were working in their offices.

Madam Speaker: The Leader of the House may like to know that I have asked all Departments of the House to observe two minutes' silence at that time. It is up to each individual, but I hope that it will be observed throughout the House, as it will in my Department.

Mr. Edward Leigh: As a former member of the Greater London council, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she agrees with me that the electors of London are capable of differentiating between a Greater London authority and a mayor, and should be allowed to vote for one, but not necessarily for the other? While she is on her feet, will she confirm that current Members of Parliament who happen to be former leaders of the GLC will be allowed to stand for the position of mayor of London?

Mrs. Taylor: I would not dream of suggesting who might or might stand for that position, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the legislation and the result of the referendum are likely to be successful.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Further to what was said by the hon. Member for Banbury

(Mr. Baldry), is the Leader of the House aware that the President of the Board of Trade has said that she wishes to oversee inward investment in Scotland? She currently does not have that power. Is it not strange that she should seek to take powers to the Department of Trade and Industry, while the Government are seeking to devolve those same powers to the new Scottish Parliament? May we have a debate on the subject?

Mrs. Taylor: As I said earlier, there is no conflict between the Ministers involved, because our overall objective must be to improve inward investment in Britain as a whole. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to explore those specific points when we debate the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect to see the Welsh and Scottish Bills? As has already been pointed out on a couple of occasions, there is confusion about why the Government should be seeking to devolve power on the one hand, and to recentralise decisions on inward investment on the other. Seeing the Bills would give us an early opportunity to discuss the ever-increasing turf war between Cabinet Ministers, and the ever-diminishing roles which are now humiliating the Secretary of State for Scotland and pushing the Secretary of State for Wales towards a very welcome resignation.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked when he would be able to see the Bills. He has seen the White Papers, as have the people of Scotland and Wales. That is why they supported our proposals. The Bills are not ready yet, but a great deal of work has been done. I am happy to report that there has been good progress on the legislation, and it will be produced in due course.

Mr. John Bercow: As a number of Members experienced long delays before receiving answers to their letters to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers when the House was not sitting, will the Leader of the House invite the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House next week, explaining exactly when she and her ministerial colleagues were and were not in the Department during the summer recess?

Mrs. Taylor: I would not comment on the holidays that Conservative Members—or, indeed, hon. Members in any party—have had, but I know that Ministers worked extremely hard throughout the recess. That is why the Government are in such a strong position now. I shall not comment on the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, not least because it was raised with you on Tuesday, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: May we have an emergency debate on agriculture, so that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can come to the House and explain the outrageous remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he accused the farming community of being both lazy and cheats?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for MAFF questions, but I do not think that there are any outstanding problems. Certainly, emergency debates are not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day — Supreme Court (Offices) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short, and modest in its scope. Indeed, it might be characterised as a technical adjustment to the machinery of government. It does, however, concern an office of great importance. I believe that some reasonably detailed explanation of its background and effect will help the House to understand the need for the Bill itself, and for it to make rapid progress.
For technical reasons, the Bill's title refers to offices of the Supreme Court, but it concerns solely the Lord Chancellor's Department. Within living memory, that Department was a very small organisation staffed almost exclusively by lawyers, but it is now a major Department of State, with a wide range of responsibilities, including overall responsibility for the court system as a whole, as well as the legal aid system.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this stage, but he used the phrase "rapid progress" a moment ago. I wonder whether he will explain quite what lies behind that phrase. Does it mean that there will be any deviation from the normal process of scrutiny of legislation by the House, or will the process take place in the normal way?

Madam Speaker: That seemed to me more like an intervention than a point of order, but perhaps the Minister will tell us the answer.

Mr. Hoon: Obviously, procedure is a matter for the House to decide, but in due course I shall invite the House, if it considers it appropriate, to deal with all stages of the Bill. As I say, that is clearly a matter for the House. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that it was announced in the House on Thursday that all stages would be taken today.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
The Department's budget is more than £2 billion, and it has a staff of more than 11,000. Selection of the Department's permanent secretary, however, is still constrained by restrictions first imposed when the permanent secretary headed an organisation of five officials.
The present restrictions prevent anyone from being considered for appointment as permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is not either a barrister or solicitor of at least 10 years' standing, or a civil servant with at least five years' experience in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The purpose of the Bill is to remove those restrictions, so that future appointments may be made from the widest field of possible candidates.
The post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor dates back to 1885. Before that, the Lord Chancellor was assisted by a principal secretary who was an officer of the Supreme Court. The principal secretary's duties were political as well as legal, and he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor personally, and generally left office along with the Lord Chancellor.
In 1885, however, the existing principal secretary became a permanent officer, and his political duties devolved to a private secretary, leaving the permanent secretary with duties which were largely legal. It was agreed by the Treasury that these duties required a legal qualification for their proper performance, and that the permanent secretary should be a barrister of at least seven years' standing, which was later raised to 10 years, and was enshrined in statute in 1925.
As I have said, the Lord Chancellor's Office at that time was very small, and the permanent secretary performed many legal duties. It was appropriate that the permanent secretary should always be a lawyer while the Lord Chancellor's Office remained a small organisation without significant administrative duties, as it did for many years. However, after the Courts Act 1971, the Lord Chancellor assumed overall responsibility for the administration of the court system as a whole, and the organisation was restructured as the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I hope that I understand the Minister correctly. He is saying that, because the Lord Chancellor's Department now controls a budget of £2 billion or more, it wants the widest possible choice in the appointment of a permanent secretary and the ability to go outside the civil service and the law, perhaps into industry and other such places, to get the most efficient and able man or woman for the job.

Mr. Hoon: We are certainly proposing that the present restrictions should be eliminated. They severely limit the availability of candidates.
The present permanent secretary has restructured the Department around an administrative and policy-making core of officials, who get legal advice, when they need it, from a separately managed group comprising legally qualified civil servants headed by a legal adviser answering directly to the permanent secretary. Therefore, the old arrangement under which a small number of legally qualified staff undertook all duties, whether legal or administrative, has disappeared.
With the ending of the old structure went the justification for requiring the permanent secretary to be a lawyer. This was recognised in part by changes made by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which allowed a non-lawyer with at least five years' experience in the Department to be considered for the post.
Some concern was expressed during the passage of that legislation in another place that it might presage some kind of downgrading of this important position. In case there are similar concerns about this Bill, I assure the House that the intention is quite the opposite. It is precisely because of the importance of the post and the qualities that it requires that its future holders should be the most able and experienced candidates available, selected from the widest possible field.
Successive Lord Chancellors have been well served by a distinguished line of permanent secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation throughout the changes


that I have described. However, the existing restriction has no parallel for any other Department, and is no longer appropriate to what has, over the years, become a major Department of State, with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities.
Furthermore, in addition to the expansion of functions and changes in the structure of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities as a member of the Government have greatly expanded.
The Lord Chancellor now chairs the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation Committee, responsible for the Government's legislative programme, and all the Cabinet Sub-Committees concerned with the Government's programme for constitutional change, as well as serving on numerous other committees. Together with the more specifically legal and departmental concerns, these additional responsibilities emphasise the necessity for the Lord Chancellor to have the advice and assistance of a permanent secretary of the highest quality and experience, selected from the widest possible field of candidates.
The effect of the existing restrictions, however, is to limit the field to such an extent that there is available across the entire senior civil service only a handful of officials who are of the seniority and experience ordinarily required of a permanent secretary and who also fulfil the existing statutory criteria for the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor. It is therefore imperative that those restrictions be removed.
The Bill therefore simply removes from schedule 2 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 the reference to the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. That has the effect of removing from that office special provisions which are, by virtue of sections 88 and 92 of the 1981 Act, applied to certain offices of the Supreme Court set out in schedule 2.
As well as removing the restriction on appointment to the office, that will result in provisions concerning tenure of the office no longer applying to it, so that the provisions governing the retirement age of the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary will be brought into line with those applicable to other permanent secretaries.
The Bill does not affect the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in any other way. In particular, the permanent secretary will continue to hold the office of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and to be the head of the permanent staff of the Crown Office, which supports the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Keeper of the Great Seal. No other office is affected.
The present permanent secretary, who has already been persuaded to remain in office longer than originally planned, is to retire in April 1998. To give time for his successor to be properly selected, the existing statutory restrictions must be removed by the end of the year.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Minister assist me with this point, which I may have missed in his explanation? Is he saying that, if the legislation that he now proposes becomes law, the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to be Clerk to the Crown in Chancery; and if so, does not that second office have a requirement that its holder be a lawyer?

Mr. Hoon: The answers to the hon. Member's questions are yes and no. It is anticipated that the

permanent secretary will continue to be Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. That position does not require the office-holder to be a lawyer.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you.

Mr. Hoon: To meet the timetable that I have set out, the Bill must make rapid progress, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to give it a fair wind, and allow it, if appropriate, not only to be read a second time but to pass through its remaining stages in the House today, so that it may be considered in another place with the necessary dispatch.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1997.
Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act 1997.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in opening the case for the Bill, and we are anxious to give the Bill a fair wind, up to a point. He pointed out that the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor is one of great importance. I entirely agree, and I am sure that he intended to say that it had been an office of great importance throughout the decades and, indeed, the centuries that it has existed.

Mr. Hoon: indicated assent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is nodding to that. He added that the Lord Chancellor's Department has grown greatly in recent years. It has taken on an active role and responsibility for the court services in a way that makes it a Department of State in a late-20th-century manner, which to a considerable extent in earlier years it was not.
That means, however, that the Department has two important functions. It has the important function of being the right-hand man or woman to the Lord Chancellor in his ancient office—and his office is almost unique to this country, and extremely important to our constitution. Montesquieu might be turning in his grave, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would stand up firmly for our constitution. His office is unique in that it is there to protect the separation of powers, not to overturn it.
What is said against us by those from other countries is that, because we have a senior Minister—one of the four most senior Ministers in any Government—who is a member of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, we do not respect the separation of powers. We do. In our pyramidal form of constitution, the Lord Chancellor is answerable to Parliament—the highest court in the land—and therefore is answerable to every Member of this House and of the other place for the proper performance of his duties, which include the protection of the true separation of the powers of the judiciary.


We are willing and very ready to assist the passage of this Bill, subject to some modifications, because, with the added administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor, there will from time to time be a perfectly good case for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor being other than a lawyer. It is highly desirable that, if he is to be somebody other than a lawyer, he should have had substantial departmental experience. The present law enables him to be permanent secretary and Clerk to the Crown in Chancery if he has had five years' experience in the Department.
I think that that should be long enough for the present Government. The Bill seeks to sweep that away, and to say, in effect, that somebody with no experience of the Department can become permanent secretary.
There are dangers in that, on which I will dwell shortly. The great importance of that ancient office means that the Lord Chancellor needs help in relation to his responsibility for the judiciary. One of his major roles is to appoint the judiciary. It is a role that Lord Chancellors of every political colour have carried out scrupulously over the centuries, with the assistance of their Department. It is immensely valuable to the Lord Chancellor in that responsibility and in his role as a link with the judicial process and the legal structure and legal establishment of our country that the permanent secretary should have long and profound experience of the legal profession.
A second aspect is the importance of the Government legal service. That service is 1,000 members strong. As the Attorney-General for five years, and Solicitor-General before that, I had the privilege of being responsible for that service, and I know that it consists of many people of high calibre. Some of them move within and across Departments.
There has been a trend in recent years for them to move more into the Lord Chancellor's Department than in the past. It is highly healthy that Government lawyers should move in and out of that Department and spend a period, from time to time, advising the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General or one of the great Departments of State—and spend time in an administrative role running, for example, the Court Service.
There are dangers here. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have introduced this Bill in good faith. This is not a party political matter, and I am not making party political points. I am making important constitutional points, because the Bill does not stand alone in the Government's legislation. We must look at it alongside the Bill introduced earlier this week to change the system of justices' clerks in magistrates courts. Following the Home Secretary's announcement, the role of the justices' clerk as the legal adviser to the magistrates is to be divorced from the role of the justices' clerk as the administrative controller of the magistrates court service.
I have anxieties about that move. I only hope—I say this not to stray from the Bill, but to illustrate my point—that the Government will think again about that Bill. In practice—it is at a much more lowly level—I hope that we shall continue to find justices' clerks who have sat week in, week out, year in, year out, in service in court also moving up the administrative ladder.
Likewise, I hope that the lawyers in the Government legal service will move from advice-giving and legal roles to an administrative role—I think that the Minister has some sympathy with my argument—so that the administrators will know what they are talking about. Then, when they help to organise the list—we must remember that listing of court cases is a judicial function, and must remain so—and assist in the judicial running of the service, they will know what they are talking about. They will have sat in court and seen how cases are operated.
We need that sort of cross-fertilisation in the Department—

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will elaborate on his remarks. I was worried when I heard the Minister say that the Lord Chancellor's Department is just the same as any other Department of State and that we should therefore treat the permanent secretary in just the same way in terms of more open recruitment and so on.
But is not the Lord Chancellor's Department unique, in that it deals with important judicial matters? That cannot really be said of any other Department. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, from, his experience, that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot be lumped in with all the other Departments for this or any other purpose?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department is unique, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, and by me earlier in my speech. The Lord Chancellor is a unique Minister. When he sits in Cabinet, he has a more independent role than any other member of the Government. He, together with the Attorney-General, has a role in ensuring respect within government for the rule of law.
In a free society, respect for the rule of law is as essential as, and historically much more deep-seated than, democracy itself. This country has believed in the rule of law and has operated it scrupulously from at least the end of the 17th century. We have built up a system of common and statute law by which all abide, and all Governments seek to abide.
If the Government are to abide by the rule of law, they must be well advised on the law. That is why I emphasise the importance of the Government legal service. It is not only that the Government should have 1,000 lawyers, but that they should have 1,000 lawyers who are respected, whose status is comparable with those of other members of the public service, and who can expect, if they have the necessary ability, to rise to the highest points in that service.
One of those highest pinnacles has, until this Bill, been reserved for lawyers who have usually spent a lifetime or a substantial part of a lifetime in law—sometimes in private practice, which has its own value, usually at the Bar, or as a solicitor. What message will go out to the Government legal service if this Bill is just passed on the nod, and the importance of the aspects I have mentioned is not recognised? The message will be that the Government is less interested in cherishing high-quality lawyers in its service.
If the Attorney-General were on the Treasury Bench for this debate, he might be tempted to intervene and say, "The Attorney-General—through the Treasury Solicitor


and Procurator-General—is the Minister responsible for the Government legal service, and he will look after that aspect of the matter." I am sure that the Attorney-General would attempt to look after the matter. He must, however, work hand in glove with the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Hoon: There is no suggestion in the Bill that lawyers will be prevented from applying for the position or prevented from being appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has a very distinguished legal background. Surely he is not suggesting that lawyers should be afraid of competition from those who are not lawyers?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, I am not suggesting that. As I said, I am attempting to be helpful in the Bill's passage, but subject to modifications—to which I invite the Minister to give the closest attention.
A week ago, I gave Lord Irvine express notice of the point that I am about to make. Today, I tabled an amendment, which the House may consider. I owe an apology for the late tabling of that amendment. Despite some precedent to the contrary, I hope that the First Deputy Chairman will be able to accept my amendment. I will not, however, anticipate the matter one way or another.
The purpose of my amendment and the substance of the matter—which I shall invite the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with—is that, if the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is in post for a period of, usually, six or seven years, is not a lawyer, he should have a deputy secretary who is a lawyer. I should say that I have had the honour of knowing a number of permanent secretaries, although I cannot recall exactly how long the very distinguished current permanent secretary has been in post. There are senior members of the Lord Chancellor's Department who could perfectly well serve as deputy secretary.
A properly appointed deputy secretary in the Department—which is, as I said, unique—would, from an acknowledged and senior position, be available to assist the Lord Chancellor in maintaining his close relations with the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor himself will no doubt seek to maintain his daily relations with the judiciary extremely well, but a deputy secretary could assist with long-term relations with the more junior judiciary, with the Bar and in the operation of the current elaborate and very excellent legal framework, thereby providing feedback to the Lord Chancellor from the legal profession and on the operation of the courts. The vital duties of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in these aspects of his work will then be fulfilled thoroughly and carefully by someone who is competent to do so.
I look forward to debating my amendment. The Bill's passage might be assisted if the Parliamentary Secretary were able to give me a fair wind on it. I look forward to Ministers' considering constructively, and, I hope, accepting, either my amendment or one in similar terms. Doing so would facilitate knitting together in the 21st century the two great strains of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and thus avoid an ugly break—from a long-standing tradition in which only a lawyer could fill the position, to one in which no senior and specially demarcated office in the Lord Chancellor's Department is filled by a lawyer.
If the Bill is passed unamended, it will be possible that neither the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor nor his most senior assistants are lawyers. It would even

be possible for there to be no lawyers in the Lord Chancellor's Department—although I do not suggest for one moment that that is likely to happen. The House should nevertheless remember that, over the years, Governments of all complexions have thought it right that the Lord Chancellor's right-hand official should be a lawyer. I am simply saying that, if No. 1 is not a lawyer, then, for the time being, No. 2 in the Department should be a lawyer, so as to protect that position. I very much hope that that will be accepted.
I am also surprised that the Government have proved themselves susceptible to agism. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is frowning. Perhaps he has not read the Bill, but he certainly read out a speech passages of which sought to justify the fact that it would no longer be possible for a permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60. What on earth is the argument for making it impossible for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60?
Personally, I can see no reason why other members of the civil service should not be capable of being kept on beyond that age. To say that that is not in conformity with other Departments is precisely the kind of awful argument that we have all had to suffer since kindergarten—that, because one person does not have something, no one else can have it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to use that argument, although I strongly suspect that he is.

Mr. Hoon: I am going to use that argument, because it is important to have consistency across Whitehall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well from his previous experience that all permanent secretaries, apart from the one that we are debating, retire at 60. Furthermore, I had always assumed that the distinguished profession of lawyer required adherence to precedent.

Mr. John M. Taylor: That is the hon. Gentleman's best shot.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: If that is the hon. Gentleman's best shot, as is being said behind me, I do not think that he has thought it through, because the Bill would alter precedent. We would be sympathetic to some modification of precedent, but we should not then instantly leap to a slavish adherence to precedent in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister if I read his biography correctly, has lectured on law, even to the new world, and should be a little more open-minded.
While we are discussing matters ad hominem and discussing agism, my researches have also discovered that the hon. Gentleman and I have one thing very firmly in common—we share a birthday.

Mr. Hoon: It is very soon.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Indeed, on 6 December. The hon. Gentleman is 15 years younger than I am, but the Lord Chancellor is only 18 months younger.
I anticipate that the Lord Chancellor, who will be 60 before the likely date of a general election—he will be 60 on 23 June 2000 if I read his biography correctly in one of the reference books—will be anxious to continue as Lord Chancellor at least for the term of this Parliament.


If "Two-term Tony", as I believe he is coming to be known, should have his way and win two terms, I suspect that there will be a "Don't Ditch Derry" move. The Lord Chancellor will hope to be Lord Chancellor in a future Labour Government, should one be elected by some mischance. He would then be soldiering on well over the age of 60.

Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that the Minister did not dwell on that point, if only to justify the fact that he wishes to make an arbitrary rule, forcing the permanent secretary to retire prematurely and when at the peak of his powers—a rule that he has not even sought to justify—but that he is apparently quite satisfied for a Lord Chancellor to continue indefinitely after that arbitrary age limit?

Sir Nicholas Lye11: My right hon. Friend once again puts his finger on an important point. If I can have the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, there is an equally important point to develop.
We are told that the Department will not be in conformity with any other. In other Departments, everyone is obliged to retire at 60, but one of the Lord Chancellor's primary functions is to deal with members of the judiciary, who do not retire until the age of 70.
Although it is unlikely that a permanent secretary would carry on until the age of 70, some flexibility is desirable to ensure a continuity of knowledge in the Lord Chancellor's right-hand adviser on a vital part of his role. To remove that possibility on the grounds of consistency is merely doctrinaire.
I would be the first to acquit the Lord Chancellor of any charges of those characteristics. I have not regarded him as one of the more dogmatic or doctrinaire members of the Government. I hope that he is not embarrassed that I put that to his credit. I hope that he will listen and reflect carefully on the two important points that I have mentioned, which I hope to develop later in our debates.
We should give the Bill a Second Reading only if the Minister gives us some indication of a fair wind and favourable consideration for my sensible amendments, which would in no way damage the ability of the Government to run the affairs of state effectively.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I follow the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about agism. Many of us are concerned about the political correctness that is creeping into every aspect of the new Labour Government. Such political correctness is being severely questioned not just in the House, but throughout industry and in legal circles. It is wrong and contrary to common sense for a senior official—a permanent secretary—to be told that he has to retire at 60 when he will be dealing with crucial issues relating to the appointment of judges, who will sit to the age of 70.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is different and the legal profession and the legal system are different. They form a separate pillar of our constitution. We must be particularly aware of the special position of the law. We have already seen the new Labour Government playing

fast and loose with our constitution. They govern by press release and spin doctor, bypassing the House of Commons. That is a slippery slope to perdition.
I have great respect for the Minister and I have had a great liking for him for several years. He has been sent here to do the bidding of his master in another place, as he has to. If he spends a little time analysing what he is proposing, he may have severe doubts about it.
Considerable concerns were expressed about the proposal as recently as two days ago in The Guardian by no less a correspondent than Mr. Marcel Berlins, who was for many years the doyen of legal correspondents at The Times, which was when I first got to know him. We used to study together in the same library in the late 1970s. He now has a column in The Guardian, called "Writ Large". He says:
Slipping quietly through Parliament is an extraordinary Bill, whose sole purpose is to make one Permanent Secretary to a Government Department equal to all other Permanent Secretaries.
I agree with Mr. Berlins' concerns. He continues:
So the Lord Chancellor's Department has finally fallen to egalitarianism.
However, these proposals are of much greater concern.

Mr. David Raney: Will my hon. Friend continue with that article from The Guardian, which refers to the possible appointment of Mr. Ian Burns as the next permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department? Will he explain how the proposal could have the ludicrous consequence of Mr. Burns being appointed at the age of 59 and having to retire at 60?

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the other concerns referred to in that article. I have no idea whether Mr. Berlins is right—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he winds up—but he says that the Bill has become known informally in the Lord Chancellor's Department as the Ian Burns Bill. I have no knowledge of Mr. Burns and I do not seek to comment in any way on the ability of a gentleman of whom I had never previously heard, but if Mr. Berlins is right—and I know him to be one of the best-informed newspaper legal correspondents—there could be ludicrous consequences.
In all aspects of public life, able people are being forced to retire when they can still perform many years of public service. That is happening purely because of doctrinaire policy. The Government are following the mistakes of many previous Labour Governments and imposing doctrinaire age limits contrary to common sense.
I share the great concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It has been suggested in the past few days that the role of legally qualified clerk in magistrates courts is to be split from administration, which does not require them to be legally qualified. Several of us tried to raise our concerns at the time of that statement, although some of us were unable to do so. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the feeling that the new Labour Government believe that lawyers should be excluded from positions of responsibility.
I detected a considerable anti-lawyer feeling among Labour Members in the previous Parliament when we were in government and they were in opposition. I know that the Minister does not share that feeling because he is


a former law lecturer and a qualified lawyer. I also know from his service on the legal committee of the European Parliament that he has always taken a serious and balanced view of legal issues. I urge him to examine the prejudices of some of his party colleagues, who seek to exclude lawyers.
The Minister has said that there is no reason to suppose that all future incumbents of the post will not be lawyers, but this may be the beginning of a slippery slope, with the Government seeking to prevent lawyers from holding the post. It is important that the holder of the post should be a lawyer. If not, at least my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment should be accepted in Committee to ensure that, if the post holder is not a lawyer, his deputy must be. I am sure that the Minister will concede that there are many specialist aspects of the job that require a lawyer.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the growth in the Government legal service, in which I have many friends, including some former members of my former chambers. He did not dwell on one of the most important innovations of the previous Conservative Government, which is relevant to today's debate—the creation of a Minister in the House of Commons to answer for the Lord Chancellor's Department. That post was held by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in a distinguished manner for several years. It was also held by Mr. Jonathan Evans, the former Member for Brecon and Radnor. We all look forward to his return to the House at the earliest opportunity.
The post was an important innovation and the fact that we can have this debate today shows how wise the previous Government were to ensure that there was a Minister in this House who could be questioned. If we did not have such a Minister, legislation such as this Bill could have been slipped through on the blind side without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to have this debate in which the Bill, the role of the Government legal service and the role of the officials at senior and junior level who serve in it can be analysed.
We must consider carefully whether it is right for the Bill to be passed in its present form—or at all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said that he would be happy for it to go through if amendments were accepted. I believe it would have been much wiser for the Bill not to be introduced and for no age limit to be imposed. It would be better, as has been the case for many years, for the permanent secretary to be a lawyer. I am concerned that the Government have got the matter wrong, and I hope that they will reconsider it carefully.

Mr. John Burnett: We welcome the Bill because it will sweep away an anachronism and open up the post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to a far wider field of candidates. I say that notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), who enjoys an enviable reputation in this House and elsewhere.
We would like the Minister to address two points. First, I hope that the Government are committed to an independent and politically impartial civil service which

is free from party political favouritism. A new permanent secretary is likely to be appointed in or before April 1998. The previous Government made significant changes to the method of selecting senior civil servants. How will the new permanent secretary be selected?
Secondly, I have noted in Sir Peter Middleton's recent report that he states:
A single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of civil justice".
Do the Government intend to introduce proposals for a single Ministry to be responsible for and to co-ordinate the proper administration of justice, which is now conducted by various Departments of state?

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest in that, over the years, I have sat as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and I now sit occasionally—I might like to sit rather more often—as a recorder of the Crown court.
I have a fair amount of notes in front of me on points that I intend to make—[Laughter.] I want, however, to start with an instinctive reaction to the Bill, which is of slight unease. I understand that it is fashionable to undervalue and downgrade lawyers. It is a sport taken up by many, but it has not yet been banned in this country, and it is gathering force. I am sometimes sad that the lawyer is so undervalued and I hope that the Bill will not contribute to that trend.
In parallel to that thought is the observation that, nowadays, when there is talk about the administration of justice, the courts and the law, one hears more and more comments such as, "It must be more efficient. We must have more productivity. How are we going to save money? How are we going to do things faster?" More and more of that kind of comment comes out as the 1990s develop, and less and less emphasis is placed on the integrity of the lawyer and on the importance of lawyers and the legal Departments. I have put that point badly, but I think that the Minister will understand what I am saying. I worry that too much emphasis is placed on the twin evils of productivity and efficiency.
What is the Bill about? It tells us that in future the permanent secretary need not be a lawyer. The Lord Chancellor has said that his Department needs as its official head the most able and experienced candidate available. Many of us cannot disagree with that comment. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say, however:
I and my predecessors have been well served by a distinguished line of Permanent Secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation".
I looked up the records and discovered that eight permanent secretaries have served in the Department over the past 110 years—one for as long as 29 years, which is not bad going. Is the Lord Chancellor right, however, to say that in future permanent secretaries need not be lawyers of 10 years' standing?
The Minister has said that the choice available to the Lord Chancellor is severely limited. How wide is the field? How limited is the choice? Is it too small? From how many people would the Lord Chancellor be able to choose if the previous criteria applied? Have previous appointments been unsatisfactory? What is prompting the change?


My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a telling intervention in which he referred to the unique nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is indeed unique. It is a Department with which I have had much contact over the past few years. To me and to people outside the Chamber, it is essentially different from the other great Departments of state. It is different in that I think of it not so much as part of the Government machine as a Department with real independence and independent thinking. It is an important safeguard in our democracy.
The permanent secretary of the Department must have close links with the top judiciary, with recorders, with stipendiary magistrates and with justices. Indeed, he probably has close links with the head of judicial appointments the Department. The head of judicial appointments is an important person who, I am sure, has close daily links with the permanent secretary. Is it not right that the permanent secretary has come from the same stable of lawyers? Is the Bill, by implication, an attack on lawyers and on the Government legal service? Will it be seen as a slap-down for the many distinguished people who should be considered for the post of permanent secretary because of their qualifications and their legal experience?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly referred to the parallel problem relating to the recent proposals for magistrates clerks. The Bill divides the functions of the magistrates clerk between the administrative functions and the functions of sitting as a clerk. The Minister will know—this is an important point not unconnected with the Bill—that as the years have gone by, magistrates clerks have felt deeply undervalued. The proposal to hive them off so that one is involved entirely in administration and the other in court sitting is a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend was quite right on that point.

Mr. Ruffley: Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on the ridiculous agism involved in qualifying to be a magistrate? Is not the agism that is so apparent in the Bill also apparent in the structure of the magistrates court system? Does he share my experience of many constituents who wish to become magistrates being told that, due to their age, they cannot contribute to work on the Bench?

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right. I was coming to the provision concerning the age limit of 60. It is as though that is a magic figure. Yes, the provision is an example of agism, which is reflected, in a sense, throughout the system. Many of us have encountered constituents who cannot become magistrates due to their age, although they would contribute immensely to the general well-being of the magistrates court system and the administration of justice. That is wrong. When will people realise that a few grey hairs can be quite important?

Mr. John M. Taylor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend says hear, hear; there are no grey hairs on him. For my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) it is another matter.

Mr. Taylor: That is because some of us do not have any hair at all.

Mr. Malins: To be serious, though, there is merit in the point. There is no difficulty in involving people over the age of 60 in the posts. Does any hon. Member think that, suddenly, at the age of 60, people lose their ability? Many distinguished lawyers have reached their peak not in their forties or fifties, but in their sixties or even later. Many examples are known to us of outstanding men and women who contributed greatly to the law when they were well over 60. I cannot see a justification for imposing a strict age limit of 60 bearing in mind the men and women who have served as permanent secretary over the past 100 years. Can the Minister tell us how many of them served with great distinction well beyond the age of 60?

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Should not the Government and the Minister be considering whether to raise the upper age limit? We know that we have an aging population and, as time goes by, it will become increasingly difficult—unless people are prepared to work to a later age—for the working population to sustain those who are not working. The proposal is a retrograde step. I would much rather the Government said that they were raising the retirement age for all permanent secretaries.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have an aging population; people are living longer. Is not the fact that a growing proportion of the population will be in their sixties, seventies or, indeed, eighties an argument for enabling people to carry on, with just a degree of flexibility, rather than stopping them in their absolute prime at the age of 60? I for one cannot understand why the Bill is so inflexible.
I return to my general theme. It worries me that, as we move towards the close of the century, what I might describe as the independence of lawyers—the pure law—is being watered down. Instead, we are fed a diet of administrators, those who seek productivity in the magistrates court system and those who are urging it to be more efficient—whatever that means. How does one become more efficient? We should be concentrating on the administration of a good, fair and accessible criminal justice system.
As I have already said, the reforms that are to be imposed on magistrates courts will make access to justice and the courts much more difficult for the ordinary person, who will find everything that much more remote. That argument spills over to the issue of the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Over the years, the post has been filled by a lawyer and I believe that that should continue always to be the case. People outside the House consider the Lord Chancellor's Department somewhat separate from other Departments: a unique and independent Department for which they have always had the utmost respect. If the Bill is passed unamended, there will be less respect for that Department. There is a real danger that some of its integrity, qualities and great


achievements will not be repeated. Indeed, there is a danger that those qualities and that integrity will disappear in the years ahead.

Mr. Eric Forth: In considering the matter before us I looked at the proceedings of the Bill that became the Supreme Court Act 1981—the original Bill. It immediately caught my eye that the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said:
with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I welcome, the Opposition Benches are deserted.
For those who believe that the House of Commons has somehow declined over the years, here we are as living proof that that is not so. Whereas the Opposition Benches were deserted in 1981, my hon. Friends and I are living proof that the present Opposition are vigorous in their determination thoroughly to scrutinise what is before the House. Conversely, on this occasion, the Government Benches are all but deserted; in fact, I do not see one authentic Back Bencher on them.
Such a parliamentary observation—if I may indulge myself—leads to the question why the Bill before us was not introduced in the other place in the same way as the 1981 Bill. Perhaps the Minister will wish to comment on that. On the face of it, to me as a layman—I speak as one of the few non-lawyers to contribute to the debate, so I hope the House will forgive me any infelicities—the Bill would have been an ideal Bill to introduce in another place. Although I am sure that the House would want to scrutinise it properly—I cannot imagine why there would be any problem in our doing so—why was not the Bill introduced in another place? That is a matter for the Minister to return to.
The proceedings on the 1981 Bill are very interesting. It must be relevant for us to reflect on that Bill since the Government are seeking to amend it. The then right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, the Opposition spokesman, said:
We all accept that there are certain tasks that should be carried out by those who are qualified by the nature of their training and experience … it would be unfortunate if, in our anxiety to avoid restrictive practices, we overlooked the qualifications and experience that are necessary for a particular job."—[Official Report, 6 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 199-210.]
Those words are at the kernel of the argument before us.
I gather that the Minister might ask us to consider other stages of the Bill's proceedings this very day. I would be reluctant to accept that, although I shall of course follow the lead of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). If he were satisfied that the Government were prepared to give due recognition to our legitimate and constructive points, we might allow the Bill to make rapid progress. I hope that there is no suggestion that there will be an attempt to ram the measure through the House without proper deliberation or due regard to the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to move. We shall return to that point later.
The question that the Minister must answer on the point about qualifications was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Are we being told that there is an

insufficient supply of suitable candidates under the existing regime? Is it suggested that somehow we cannot find a suitable permanent secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department within the existing restrictions? However, I have not heard the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that.
The Bill seeks to overturn a satisfactory arrangement, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not told us why. It would be one thing if he had argued that there were not enough trained and experienced lawyers within the Department, but I do not believe that that is what he was arguing. The Bill has come out of the blue, seemingly for the sake of dogma, political correctness or some grotesque uniformity across Government. We need more on that point before some of us can be satisfied.
I shall not labour the point that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot simply be lumped in with the other Departments of Government and treated the same, because many of my hon. Friends have already covered it. However, as a layman, I always thought that the Lord Chancellor's Department was special and separate, not least because—I am now treading on difficult territory—in much of its work it fulfils not just a quasi-judicial role but a judicial role. To that extent, the Department must be marked out as separate.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend prefaced his remarks by saying, with false modesty, that he is not a lawyer. He is of course one of the Opposition's sharpest minds and best speakers. He singled out the Lord Chancellor's Department as having a special role, and I endorse that point. The Lord Chancellor is the President of the Supreme Court and the most senior judge in England. That distinguishes his Department from others.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can elaborate on his inside knowledge of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We will want to take his words into account when we decide how to vote on the Bill.

Mr. Ruffley: Clearly, some offices of state require a specialist knowledge for the discharge of their functions. For example, the Home Secretary requires a knowledge of the law and we have seen a long succession of Home Secretaries who have been lawyers of one type or another. That is because solicitors and barristers understand the nature of the work of a Home Secretary. Is not what is true of the Home Office also true of the Lord Chancellor's Department?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regularly remind the House that interventions should be brief. That rule is particularly apposite in the case of hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I am sure that they would not wish to run the risk of repeating themselves.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is right. Do we want to lump the Lord Chancellor's Department in with the department for youth, sport and ballet dancing, or whatever it is called these days? There is no need for restrictions on appointments in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we are all agreed—unless the Parliamentary Secretary dissents—that the Lord Chancellor's Department has special characteristics that justify the


restrictions originally placed on the qualifications of the permanent secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has given no reasons for departing from those restrictions and the hon. Gentleman must satisfy us on that point before the Bill goes much further.
My main point, which I cannot state strongly enough, is about agism. I have long felt that it is pernicious, unnecessary and unfair for arbitrary and mandatory rules to be placed on retirement age. That is even more true of the insupportable mandatory retirement age of 60 for the civil service. I have had the honour and the privilege of working closely with senior civil servants, which has been one of the greatest and most pleasing experiences of my life. I was always shocked and disappointed when, at the age of 60, civil servants at the peak of their powers were forced into arbitrary retirement by a rule that was devised long ago in completely different circumstances.
Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying, with almost a straight face, that he will remove the welcome latitude that has hitherto been available to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the sake of blind uniformity with the wrong-headed rules applied to the rest of the civil service. This should be an opportunity to follow the good example of the Lord Chancellor's Department and change the rules for the rest of the civil service. We should abolish arbitrary, uniform and mandatory retirement ages, certainly for the civil service and preferably for everyone else. As a small first step, we should retain the existing flexibility in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and use it as a basis for changing the rules for the rest of the civil service.
For those reasons, we need more convincing reasons than we have heard so far to persuade us that the Bill is worth supporting. Because I am in a generous mood today, I am prepared to go along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who made a perhaps over-generous offer to the Parliamentary Secretary. I will be guided by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has wide experience of such matters, but I hope that the Bill, however small a measure it may seem, will not be railroaded through the House today as if it were of little or no account. I hope that the Opposition's comments will convince the House that the Bill deserves thorough attention and a co-operative and flexible approach from the Government before it goes any further.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: When I first found out that the Bill was being brought before the House, my concern was that we had had no notice. I appreciate the need for urgency, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Bill involves a substantial change to an important appointment which has been notified in only one press notice from the Lord Chancellor's Department dated 29 October 1997—the same day that the Bill was published. My inquiries into the Bill's background, beyond what is covered by the press release from the Department, show that no consultation has taken place with any of the legal bodies, such as the Law Society, or with the union for senior civil servants. In effect, the Bill has no history, and no ministerial statement preceded it. Those facts raise concerns about the motives behind the Bill.
This afternoon, it has become clear that the reasons behind the Bill stem from the need of the Lord Chancellor's Department to find a replacement for the present permanent secretary, who intends to retire. That is not a good reason to change an established practice.
I shall now turn to the history of the role that the permanent secretary has played. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) noted, apparently no one was present on the Labour Benches when the Supreme Court Act 1981 was discussed by the House. If the then Opposition had bothered to be present, they would have learnt that the post of permanent secretary was treated together with judicial posts under the Act. I quote from the Supreme Court Act 1981.
A person shall not be qualified for appointment to any office in the Supreme Court listed in column I of any Part of Schedule 2 unless he is a person of any description specified in relation to that office in column 2 of that Part.
At the top of the column, we have the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and there is a requirement that the permanent secretary should have a 10-year general qualification in the law. It will be noted that that is similar to all the other major offices which are there listed, including the Official Solicitor, the Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals, the Registrar of Civil Appeals and the district judge of the principal registry of the family division. I take that back—he needs only five years' qualification within the relevant profession. A substantial number of persons and offices are listed which require a lesser period of legal general qualification.
I am mindful of everything that the Minister has said, but a detailed explanation is required as to why an accepted practice which was not opposed by Labour in 1981—indeed, no Labour Member was present when it was accepted—is to be arbitrarily overturned. The measure as not been introduced in the House of Lords, as one might have expected—if only because the political and legal head of the Department concerned is the Lord Chancellor. One might say that it is the Lord Chancellor's cookie and we should have liked to hear his explanations at the outset.
The Minister has said that he wishes all the Bill's stages taken in the House to be taken in one go. Subsequently, it will go to the Lords for formal rubber stamping. I do not share that view and I would like to explain why. First, I wish to refer to the nature of the office. A great deal has been said by my hon. Friends on the subject, but it bears repeating. [Laughter.] One of the reasons why it bears repeating is that, effectively, we are having a dialogue with the Minister only. It is a pernicious development when it is assumed that a Bill can be rubber-stamped by this House without a proper debate.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Those Labour Members who are laughing will need some points repeated, because they were not in the Chamber when they were originally made. They only came into the Chamber after my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that not a soul was on the Government Back Benches except one hon. Lady substituting as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I think she was not present in a Back-Bench role—perhaps she


will rise to speak and prove me wrong. All the others laughing so happily have not been listening to the debate, and my hon. Friend's remarks will be new to them.

Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely, and that is why this is a proper subject for a full debate.
I have sympathy with the difficulty which the Minister says the Department faces. From 1885—when a permanent secretary was first appointed—until today, the scope of the Lord Chancellor's Department has changed beyond all recognition. It is an important Department of State and, in addition, a major spending Department. I am mindful of that, and of the fact that it has spawned a substantial bureaucracy. The Department has many employees and has an exceptionally important function in reconciling the administration of justice with the conduct of the Government, in a way that is peculiar to this country. The Department is particularly important to the way in which we conduct our business in this country.
I realise that there are potential difficulties in finding administrators who may be able to deal with the scope of the administrative operation of the Department. But one must reflect that, as the Department has grown in past years, there has not been much difficulty in recruiting permanent secretaries of the highest calibre to discharge their office, as the Minister has acknowledged. What has not been fully explored is the role of the permanent secretary in his quasi-judicial function. That is why he is listed along with all the other quasi-judicial functions in the 1981 Act.
The permanent secretary is the most important adviser to the Lord Chancellor on a number of matters, including appointments and the way in which the judiciary might better be able to function. It is of the utmost importance that, in carrying out this role, he should be able to advise the Lord Chancellor fully on a range of matters and to have good connections and contacts with all parts of the legal profession.
In my experience, previous permanent secretaries have involved themselves in the professional life of the Bar or the Law Society. I am well aware from my early days at the Bar that—either in office or retirement—a number of permanent secretaries took the closest possible interest in the way in which the profession operated, which clearly enabled them to have an enormous amount of input into the problems of the administration of justice in this country. It is proposed in the Bill that, in future, that involvement will not be a requirement. I am anxious that, in those circumstances, the Lord Chancellor will not receive the best advice for the discharge of his judicial functions.
Comments have been made to the effect that the legal profession is wishing to feather its own nest and keep its monopolies. But if I can give an analogy, it would be thought odd if the job of principal medical adviser to the Government went to someone who was not a doctor, on the basis that his functions were mainly administrative and that he could receive input from others. In such circumstances, he might just as well be an administrator as someone grounded in medical science. If that were the case, there would be an outcry and public disquiet on the subject.
Similarly, it is important that the Lord Chancellor is seen to be receiving from the permanent secretary—or someone occupying a position close to the permanent

secretary—the relevant legal and professional advice to enable the Lord Chancellor to discharge his burdensome duties. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) suggested that this could properly be done by an amendment which simply stated that, if the permanent secretary was not legally qualified and did not fulfil the criteria set out in the 1981 Act, his deputy would be acceptable.
I am bound to say that that is sensible and ought to commend itself to the Minister. If it does not, I will have serious reservations. There has been no consultation. The professional bodies concerned have not been asked for their views, and it has been suggested that this matter is so straightforward that it requires only a rubber stamp.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend refers to the lack of consultation, which tends to support the concern expressed in The Guardian—to which I have referred—that there is a distinct whiff of this matter being pushed through on the blind side by the Government in the hope that no one will notice. A suggestion for the Government's motivation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) in an intervention. Is there not some truth in what he said?

Mr. Grieve: ; I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree. I have no comment as to the capacity or otherwise of any individual to fulfil the responsibilities of the office. I would not wish to do so. I reiterate, however, that simply to introduce such legislation because of a one-off difficulty without considering the totality of the picture is a mistake.
Before concluding, I must say one or two words about the agism. I do not want to go into it in great detail, as I have already intervened on the matter and do not intend to repeat myself. I would say, however, that, if one accepts that the nature of judicial and quasi-judicial offices is somewhat different from that of the other offices fulfilled in the civil service, and if one differentiates them from that service—which I believe the Government would be at pains to do—one immediately confronts the fact that the retirement ages are entirely different. That was for a good reason because it was considered that experience was of such importance in such offices that it overcame the need for the normal retirement age.
I have expressed the view that, as time goes by in the next decade, we will be confronted increasingly with the fact that we are forcing people to retire too early. That in itself is an argument why the present proposal is not a good one. Even if I were not dealing with that wider issue, however, I would still be concerned as to why it should be thought that the retirement age of the permanent secretary, who fulfils a completely individual role, should be tied to that of the rest of the civil service.
Everything that emphasises the somewhat different nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department from that of other offices of government is an important reinforcement of the independence of its role. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made. I shall certainly defer to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire wants to do at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
I can only express a certain amount of disquiet, and the hope that in future there should at least be a few weeks for adequate consultation and reflection. A feature of this


Government and the way in which they introduce legislation is that within 48 hours or a few days of its coming before the House it is back to be debated. That really is not good enough. We should be supplied with an opportunity for reflection and not simply hi-jacked and expected to say, "Well, it isn't very important. We can let it through." All legislation is important and the Bill is particularly so.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I have ever suffered from the debilitating weakness of being able to see both sides of an argument, something that never troubled the last Prime Minister but two. On the one hand, in dealing with judges and the Bar, not least silks and the Law Society, one is dealing, dare I say, with a client group that can occasionally show a slight tendency to believe that no one but one of its own understands its business. On the other hand, it can in theory at least be a distortion to career progress in the Lord Chancellor's Department for senior civil servants in the Department to know that some of them could become permanent secretary and some, by statute no less, could never do so.
The question of a Department of State having a client group can incidentally, in certain circumstances, lead to false expectations on the part of that group. On seeing one of its own in place in a Ministry, the client group can half believe that he or she will represent it in government. To the contrary, he or she is most likely to be the bringer of denial on behalf of the Department to his or her fellow professionals in the client group. I experienced that as a solicitor and junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was the first person to hold that office—and, indeed, as a member of the Law Society. To some extent, I think that I was a disappointment to my client group.
One wonders how far one might extend the provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to a senior medical post—overtly medical in qualification—being occupied by someone who did not possess that qualification. What would happen to a Ministry of Defence whose permanent secretary was a retired general? Would it work? What about a large landowning, proprietor farmer as permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a senior policeman at the Home Office, a diplomat at the Foreign Office—perhaps that happens, as there is a read-across between the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service—a consultant at health and an airline pilot at transport? The better view is that such appointments are not always happy.
That brings me to an analogy drawn from an exchange of correspondence that I had with the British Legion, which urged on me with highly responsible reason and argument that there should be a Minister for veterans. I was doubtful if such an appointment would bring them the advantages that they worthily desired, because such a Minister would inevitably represent the Government to them, not them to the Government.
At this point, I will not digress on what I consider to be the anomalous position of the Attorney-General, who is a very senior member of the Government and also head of the Bar [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am tempted, but not that tempted. The House will be interested, as always, in an historical insight.
In the 1590s—400 years ago—the House of Commons debated the role of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for four solid days, coming to the conclusion–1 have this faithfully—that the Clerk of the Crown is our own particular officer. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a sort of mystery in all that. On the other hand, you may think that that is not a very heroic piece of definition. Four hundred years later, we still do not seem to have the measure of this man. That may not be entirely surprising, since he has been around since at least 1331 as Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certainly. I think Parliament may be a little frightened of him. He has the endurance of a Hapsburg and also has important duties relating to writs of summons to Members of this honourable House.
Finally, I agree with all that has been said about age discrimination, and I cannot understand why the measure was not introduced in the House of Lords. I feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department is particularly interesting. The office of Lord Chancellor has endured for about 1,360 years—it is almost as old as the monarchy and certainly far older than Parliament.
In an earlier time, not least in the time of the Tudors, the Lord High Chancellor of England was easily the most powerful man in the country. He usually combined his judicial duties with one of the two archbishoprics and was chief executive as no Prime Minister these days is. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the great 18th-century nostrum. Searching for reasons to explain why England was stable, the great jurists of the day, such as Montesquieu and others, came to the conclusion that England was stable because it separated the three fundamental functions of the state—the judicial, the executive and the legislative. It was a very elegant conclusion.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the proposal, introduced by the Minister with so little scrutiny, is that it may be part of the slippery slope to merging those three pillars of state? That accords with much that we used to hear from Labour Members in opposition—the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) often used to argue this—about lay people with no legal qualifications becoming not only magistrates but judges.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, one might as well have a vote on an aircraft to choose which passenger should be the pilot.
The 18th-century conclusion that England was stable because of the separation of powers was one that the examiners seemed to want to arrive at irrespective of the evidence. There was precious little separation of powers then, and to this day the Lord Chancellor has in his person the presidency of the Supreme Court, the speakership of the House of Lords, the helm of an important Department of State and a very senior place in the Cabinet.
The nostrums of 200 years ago were completely mistaken, but they had a mightily important consequence: the form and framework of the constitution of the United States of America, a country that is extremely difficult to govern because it has separation of powers and the Government cannot control spending.
I had the enormous, humble privilege of serving in the Lord Chancellor's Department, where I acquired deep respect for the civil servants, and not least the permanent


secretary, from whom I had immensely capable help and warm and friendly assistance throughout my three and a half years there. They remain some of the happiest days of my life and if, by some fluke, there are any present who are connected with the Department, I mind not at all that they should know.
I end as I began: I can see both sides of the argument, but I think that I shall follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) into the Lobby. How many times we shall go into the Lobby I am not sure. How much progress we shall make on the Bill is not known to me. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I do not control the timetable, so I shall merely take my opportunity, summoned as ever by bells, to register my vote in what will probably be several Divisions, before we can all go home, very much later tonight.

Mr. David Ruffley: The Minister was surely right to say that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important post, but he was surely wrong to give the impression that the change in the Bill was merely technical. It is a change in an important matter of principle.
Part of the logic behind the Bill is set out in what Conservative Members consider to be an inadequate press release. The reason for the change is couched in the language of managerialism. I know how popular managerialism is on the Government Benches, but I fail to understand how the Government can ask us to support the change, when the reason given is that the limitation that they want to get rid of
is no longer appropriate to what over the years has become a major Department of State with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities.
From the words in the press release, one might believe that the job described was counting paper clips or dealing with stationery orders or staff matters. That is part of the permanent secretary's job, but it is not the whole of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably pointed out, the permanent secretary has quasi-judicial functions. We have heard precious little about that from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), quoting Mr. Marcel Berlins, explained the other, partial logic behind the Bill: the levelling down and egalitarianism with which we are so familiar from the Government. It does not serve the interests of justice or the proper and efficient running of the Department.
Whatever the logic—I use the word loosely in connection with the Labour party—it is perfectly clear that the Minister has not done his homework. The many excellent speeches by Conservative Members have exposed the many flaws in his argument. The Minister is laughing, but he must answer some important questions. Why has the First Division Association, according to the Library, not been consulted in any way? That is a disgraceful way to treat senior public servants. The Government talk about listening, caring, compassion and giving, but they are not giving much time and attention to the senior civil servants who work for them.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend refers to consultation. Has there been any consultation with the judiciary,

the presiding judges at the various Crown court centres, the Bar Council, the Law Society or any of the other leading bodies that might be interested in the Bill?

Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we need answers from the Minister.

Mr. Hawkins: On the lack of consultation with the First Division Association, it should be noted that the former head of the FDA in the previous Parliament, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, is now a Minister in another place. One wonders what she thinks of her ministerial colleagues failing to consult her former trade union.

Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps Baroness Symons would like to make her views known, assuming that the Minister without Portfolio will let her. I understand from the Library that the Law Society was also not consulted. We are entitled to ask that there should be consultation on legislation with parties that have a legitimate interest.
There is another problem that the Minister has not dealt with: the disincentive to able lawyers in the civil service who want to stay there. We have heard nothing from the Minister about recruitment and retention; I hope that he will address that. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit top-rank lawyers to serve the Government, because there is a great discrepancy between the pay that a top lawyer can expect in the Government's legal service and in the City.
When I worked in the City as a solicitor, it was not uncommon for first-rate legal brains to become partners of law firms and earn more than £200,000. Labour Members may think that that is obscene, but since their conversion to market principles they should at least acknowledge that we get what we pay for. If that is the going rate for first-rate lawyers in the City, we know that we will have a problem in getting the best in the Government legal service. That problem will become worse if the Bill is enacted, because many able young lawyers in the Government legal service will feel that they have lost the right to obtain the top job in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, the Bill is anti-lawyer.
The Attorney-General has just taken his seat. The Government are doing so badly that they have had to bring in the big guns.
What work has the Minister done, with his officials, to see what effect the Bill will have on the recruitment and retention of first-rate legal ability in the Government legal service? If he has not done such work, will he undertake to do it today and report to the House accordingly?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) put his finger on the main issue when he said that the permanent secretary has a job like no other in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Legal specialism in such a Department is important. I have seen how civil servants' lack of legal ability can damage the quality of legislation. I have played a part in government for a lot longer than the Minister. I was a special adviser at the Home Office. I was shocked to see how policy failures emanated from the failure of senior Home Office civil servants, dealing with legal matters, to grasp legal concepts. That led to policy failures with which Ministers had to grapple.


For example, problems were caused by unit fines under criminal justice legislation, and legal definitions in the new age travellers legislation were not thought through. A good permanent secretary should have a handle on such subjects. At the end of the day, he is responsible for the quality of legislation that is put in draft for Ministers' approval. There are many clear examples of where a failure of legal understanding on the part of senior civil servants damages the quality of a Department's output.
When we consider all the evidence, we must conclude that the Bill has not been thought through, and many questions remain. The Opposition would prefer the Bill to be dropped, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), being a generous man, has put forward a sensible amendment which addresses most of our concerns. If the Government have any sense, they will accept the amendment and ensure that we have what we all want—a proper functioning Lord Chancellor's Department. I thank my hon. Friends for their interventions and I urge support for my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hoon: The debate has been characterised by what can only be described as a gaggle of lawyers articulating some concern for other lawyers' vested interest in securing particular positions. That was described as vigorous opposition. Perhaps the Government should be grateful, because if that is vigorous opposition, they may not have much to worry about. If Opposition Members have to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on this modest measure, they may not have time for other matters, so at least I am assisting the Government's programme by occupying hon. Members who might have been usefully employed elsewhere.

Mr. Grieve: Has not the debate revealed the Government's lack of scrutiny of the measure?

Mr. Hoon: On the contrary: it has revealed Opposition Members' failure to do their homework. The single point that has been repeated throughout the debate is that the Bill removes the important qualification that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: In which year did that requirement first appear?

Mr. Hoon: The requirement has been in place for a considerable time. However, if it is so vital that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified, why did the previous Conservative Government, in which the right hon. and learned Member held such a distinguished position, change the rules to allow, for the first time, the office to be occupied by someone who was not a lawyer? Conservative Members have referred many times to the importance of that position being occupied by a lawyer, but it was their Government who changed that. That is why it is remarkable that Conservative Members have not done their homework as thoroughly as they might have before spending so much time on this issue.
I shall deal briefly with the more sensible points that have been made during the debate, but there were not too many. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)

achieved the ultimate in hyperbole when he said that the Government were playing fast and loose with the constitution and that that was the road to perdition. Clearly, the road to perdition for a lawyer is taking away the opportunity to compete freely with others in order to secure a position, because that is what we are debating today.
It is remarkable that lawyers should spend so much time, presumably without any extra payment, arguing that cause. Looking at the distinguished qualifications that have been on display today, I am surprised and disappointed that they were not earning a much better living otherwise than in the Chamber.
However, one or two sensible points have to be addressed. In particular, there was the suggestion that the deputy to the permanent secretary should be a lawyer. That is simply not practical, not least because it bears no relation to the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any other Department, is organised. It may seem a long time since the Government were elected in May, because we have had such success in achieving our manifesto commitments, but Opposition Members who have had some experience of government have clearly forgotten how their Departments were organised. At least three former Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, and they should remember that hardly a Department has a deputy permanent secretary. These changes have been under way for a considerable time.
I can assure the House that knowledge and experience of the legal and judicial culture are bound to be desirable qualities for someone in this position. All things being equal, it may be attractive to have a candidate who possesses such qualifications. In any event, the successful candidate will either have to possess those qualities or show a capacity to acquire them.
Furthermore, apart from the fact that the Department's legal adviser works directly to the permanent secretary, the senior management of the Department is always likely to include people who possess those qualities and who can support the permanent secretary or the Lord Chancellor.
This remarkable effort by the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to preserve the qualification of lawyer for this position is a farrago of nonsense.

Mr. Malin: The Minister would not have said that the current choice is severely limited unless he had something with which to back up his statement. How wide is the field? What is the choice currently available?

Mr. Hoon: I referred to senior civil servants. Very few senior civil servants currently possess the requisite qualifications. Some lawyers have those qualifications, and anyone who has worked in the Department for the requisite period is similarly qualified—the hon. Gentleman overlooked that aspect, but I shall pass over that. As Conservative Members have emphasised often enough during the debate, someone with suitable seniority and experience will necessarily have had long experience of government. We would look to a very senior figure when considering an appointment to this position. Very few senior figures in Whitehall at present are suitably qualified.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He said that very few people in government service have the requisite qualifications.

Mr. Hoon: No.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: He said that very few people in the Lord Chancellor's Department—

Mr. Hoon: No, I did not.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman keeps shaking his head and saying that he did not say that. I wrote down, "very few who have the requisite qualifications": those were his ipsissima verba. I am sure that he will explain them, and when he does so, will he say briefly what the requisite qualifications for this post are and where he expects to find them?

Mr. Hoon: Few senior civil servants with the requisite experience are qualified under the existing statutory rules. That is the problem which the Department faces in securing the appointment of someone who has the various qualifications that Conservative Members have set out.
Conservative Members are caught by their own logic. If their logic is that it is vital to appoint someone who is so senior and experienced that he could hold such a responsible position in the Lord Chancellor's Department, they must recognise that it is important for the Department, when seeking such a figure, to be able to attract candidates from the widest possible field and not be limited to people who have either a legal qualification or the requisite five years' experience in the Department. Those are the two qualifications that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to two qualifications that candidates may not have, but he has not listed any of the qualifications that are required. He will certainly have done his homework, so he should be able to spin off at least five qualifications that he has in mind.

Mr. Hoon: This modest, technical change to the rules is important, because it will allow us to appoint the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department from among people with suitable qualifications and background who are presently eligible to be considered for the post of permanent secretary in any other Department. We should be able to choose someone with the requisite qualifications for leadership and management of a large public or private sector organisation. They should be familiar with, and ideally have direct experience of, the processes of government, and have proven experience of strategic policy development and implementation.
The Bill removes the requirement of a legal qualification. I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a qualification. The previous Government established that in their legislation. It is remarkable that the House has been detained for so long by Conservative Members putting up bogus arguments. They voted for such a measure during the previous Parliament.

Mr. Grieve: I want to understand fully the hon. Gentleman's position. The 1990 amendment to the

original Act provides that, as an alternative to a lawyer, someone who has been in the Lord Chancellor's Department for five years can be considered. The present measure will allow a senior civil servant who has not worked in the Lord Chancellor's Department and is not a lawyer to be appointed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1990 amendment was introduced so as to be mindful of the need for the appointee to be familiar with the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department operated if the person concerned was not a lawyer? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that issue?

Mr. Hoon: I distinctly heard the sound of ground changing: that was not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Having been reminded of the issues we are dealing with, he is now shifting his argument significantly. If he will forgive me, as he could not get it right the first time, I shall not pay any attention to his second, C-minus effort.
I have answered all the serious questions save one. The matter of retirement age much concerned Conservative Members. The current provisions will allow the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to retire on the same basis as any other permanent secretary in any other Department. The permanent secretary will have the same opportunity as any other to continue after 60 in appropriate circumstances. There is that flexibility; former Ministers and any Conservative Members who have had experience of government know that full well. They are trying to put up a smokescreen: it is a charade.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman said that former Ministers know full well that there is flexibility to allow people to continue after 60. I confess to less than complete knowledge of that. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in two sentences what the rules are and how long any permanent secretary can continue?

Mr. Hoon: The rules are flexible and can be agreed with the person concerned in the light of the circumstances to which Conservatives Members referred. If someone in that position still fulfils a valuable role in the Department, that person can, by agreement, be allowed to stay on after 60. All this modest proposal will do is put the Lord Chancellor's Department on the same footing as any other Department.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. It has been suggested that the Minister may seek to deal with further stages of the Bill today. It would help us if we knew before he resumes his seat, and before you ask the House for its view on Second Reading, how the Minister proposes to deal with this matter procedurally, and whether he is prepared to accept the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seeks to make to the Bill. I hope that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would help the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. It is a point of information to the Minister.

Mr. Hoon: I dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's reflections on the vigorous opposition that he claimed the


official Opposition were now providing, although perhaps he was absent. I said that I was surprised that this debate amounted to vigorous opposition. If there had been vigorous opposition, the right hon. Gentleman would have noticed that the Order Paper showed that the measure was to go through all its stages. That has been available for the past week for Conservative Members to consider. Unfortunately, the vigour of their opposition does not appear to have manifested itself until rather late this afternoon.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Hoon: No, I will not give way.
Indeed, the vigour of Conservative Members' opposition manifested itself so late in the day that amendments were submitted only at the eleventh hour.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not good enough. He has acknowledged in the House today that I alerted the Lord Chancellor last week to the suggestion that there should be a deputy secretary. That is the subject which we seek to debate today, and that is the matter on which we seek a careful and considered answer. I have tabled a manuscript amendment, which I hope will be selected for debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister would calmly and courteously answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me about his attitude to a proper debate on this important issue.

Mr. Hoon: I was not in any way casting any doubt on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's integrity; I was simply reflecting on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that he was somehow a representative of some new, vigorous Opposition. Had he been as vigorous as he claimed, he might well have been able to check how long the proposal had been on the Order Paper—and, indeed, why his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office had not sought to suggest, for example, in the light of today's debate, that the matter should be referred to a Committee.
The Government received no representations whatever suggesting that that was what the Opposition wanted. In fact, until this afternoon's filibuster began, we had assumed—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if a filibuster had been taking place, you would have ruled the speeches out of order? It is not right for a Minister Crown to describe speeches made by hon. Members as a filibuster, because that is not allowed in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Chair has not heard anything so far that has been out of order. My advice to the House is that there should be a little less provocation on both sides.

Mr. Hoon: I was simply entering into the spirit of things, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if any Conservative Members have been offended by the robust nature of my remarks.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 5.

Division No. 84]
[6.12 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Gardiner, Barry


Allan, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Allen, Graham
Grogan, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hain, Peter


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Harvey, Nick


Atherton, Ms Candy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Atkins, Charlotte
Healey, John


Austin, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Banks, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Heppell, John


Battle, John
Hill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Hinchliffe, David


Beard, Nigel
Hoey, Kate


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bell, Marlin (Tatton)
Hope, Phil


Betts, Clive
Hopkins, Kelvin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blizzard, Bob
Hutton, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Iddon, Dr Brian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Illsley, Eric


Buck, Ms Karen
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Burden, Richard
Jenkins, Brian


Burgon, Colin
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Burnett, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Jones, Ms Jennifer


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Casale, Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chaytor, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clwyd, Ann
Keetch, Paul


Coaker, Vernon
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Coffey, Ms Ann
Khabra, Piara S


Coleman, Iain
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cooper, Yvette
Kingham, Ms Tess


Corbett, Robin
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Corston, Ms Jean
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Cranston, Ross
Laxton, Bob


Crausby, David
Lepper, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Levitt, Tom


Cummings, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Linton, Martin


Darvill, Keith
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Livsey, Richard


Dawson, Hilton
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
McAvoy, Thomas


Dismore, Andrew
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McIsaac, Shona


Doran, Frank
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Drew, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Drown, Ms Julia
Mactaggart, Fiona


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McWalter, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mallaber, Judy


Edwards, Huw
Marek, Dr John


Ennis, Jeff
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Merron, Gillian


Follett, Barbara
Michael, Alun


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Mitchell, Austin






Moore, Michael
Shipley, Ms Debra


Moran, Ms Margaret
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Morley, Elliot
Singh, Marsha


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mountford, Kali
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mudie, George
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Hara, Eddie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Palmer, Dr Nick
(Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pollard, Kerry
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prosser, Gwyn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rammell, Bill
Watts, David


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Mike


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Salter, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Jane Kennedy and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Colvin, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Grieve, Dominic



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnson Smith,
Mr. Eric Forth and


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Nick Hawkins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Janet Anderson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.—[Janet Anderson.]

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. Hon. Members who were not here for the earlier debate will be interested to know what this one is about. It is about the fact that the Government are seeking to get their business through the House in a day. I have made it perfectly clear that we are not seeking to prevent that: the official Opposition did not vote against Second Reading. We seek a sensible debate on two points, the first and most fundamental of which I gave the Lord Chancellor notice of a week ago. The Minister acknowledges that. I have tabled a manuscript amendment and hope that I can persuade you to call it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a bit confused about

whether we are in Committee or debating whether to go into Committee. I do not know whether other hon. Members would own up to the same confusion. Could the matter be clarified?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were in the House paying attention to our proceedings he would know. The occupant of the Chair should not be required to inform him of the position. A motion has been moved about immediate committal. That is the Question that is before us.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Hon. Members may feel that they are being kept longer than they expected. We wish to have a serious debate on two questions. The first basic question in the Bill is whether the House should agree that the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary should not necessarily be a lawyer, not necessarily even a person with a legal qualification, who has grown up with the work of the Department and who has been there for at least five years. While we would be prepared to give that a fair wind, we would be prepared to do so only if the important continuity of knowledge from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Lord Chancellor about his judicial functions and all functions connected with them and in relation to the practical administration of the courts were protected.
That could be done by ensuring that when the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary is not a lawyer or someone with five years' experience, there would be a deputy secretary in the Department to fulfil the necessary functions. He would be a lawyer of 10 years' standing; and there must be scores, if not hundreds, of such people with developing seniority in the Government legal service. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor would have a senior person who carries the respect accorded to someone who holds a notified post to whom he could turn on these important aspects of his duties. That would help to ensure that "can-doism", which I am sure would never take over in the Lord Chancellor's Department, is balanced by a respect for law and legality. That is the serious debate we seek.
It is sometimes difficult for a manuscript amendment to be called. I am sure that the point has been grasped by the 220 hon. Members who are here. I hope that the Minister will give me a fair wind by saying that the Government will support a debate on my amendment if the House goes into Committee. Of course, that does not bind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful for a helpful answer to that from the Minister, and then we can decide whether we should support our continuing to scrutinise the Bill in Committee tonight.

Mr. Forth: The House is debating whether this matter should immediately be considered in Committee, and anyone who was in the Chamber during the Second Reading debate—which virtually no Labour Member attended—would realise immediately that the problem that confronts the House is the Minister's persistent refusal to give proper answers to the questions asked by Opposition Members during the debate.
The motion must be viewed in the light of what went before. Surely we cannot expect automatically to agree a


deviation from the normal procedures of the House without taking some account of what happened previously; that would be entirely unreasonable. That, I suggest, is why procedures allow for the short debate on which we are now embarking, in which I suspect several of my hon. Friends wish to participate, because we must now consider, as a House, whether we are ready to consider the matter in Committee now, as opposed to at a future date.
The difficulty is not confined to the poor quality of the Minister's response. It also revolves around what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said earlier about the difficulties that may or may not arise from the ability of the Committee—were it to sit—to consider amendments. I say that specifically because my right hon. and learned Friend has been over-generous to the Government and to the Minister. I am sorry to say that, but I think that he has. He has made them an offer that I could just about go along with, were it to be agreed to.
I would prefer that we be allowed to reflect on what was said on Second Reading—on the points so eloquently made by Opposition Members and on the Minister's bumbling and rather arrogant replies. We should reflect on those and consider, in the light of the Second Reading debate, which has just finished, whether we want to amend the Bill. We should consider whether to take the package generously offered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire or, as I would prefer, to seek to move separate amendments, dealing separately with the key points that emerged from the debate.
Those key points were, first, the proposed lifting of the restriction on the recruitment of a permanent secretary and, secondly, the point skated over by the Minister as though it were of no consequence—the age limit on the service of a permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Those matters may or may not go together. I am starting to think, reflecting—as I have had only a few moments to do—on the Second Reading debate, that those matters can and should be dealt with separately. However, were the Minister to be prepared to be reasonable to the line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my colleagues might be prepared to go along with him. It would not be proper, however, in the light of the debate that has taken place, for matters such as that to be rushed into.
The Minister made the procedure sound like a minor technicality. He tried to spoof the House as if to say, "Why are Conservative Members here? Why are they taking part in the debate? How have they the nerve to come to the Chamber to raise these points and waste my time?" I believe that I sum him up not unfairly.
That will not do. The Minister may be relatively new in government, but he must learn that the Government are accountable to the House of Commons and that that accountability expresses itself in debate, in the mature consideration of points and in the consideration of amendments that are tabled now, rather peremptorily, on the Floor in Committee, or in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the points that the Minister signally failed to answer was the point about the fact that the Bill was not introduced in another place? As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we would expect that to be the procedure in the case of legislation that directly reflects on the position of the Lord Chancellor. That is another matter that needs reflection while the House is considering whether it is prepared to have the Bill pushed through without proper debate, all in one day.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right, and he reminds me that that was yet another argument that received, as far as I recall, no response from the Minister. I should have thought that, as a courtesy to the House, he might have explained why he and his colleagues in the Government had decided to table discussion of the Bill on a Thursday evening, to slip it through—probably while no one was noticing—and then to dust it off and send it to the other place.
That is not the way that we should deal with these things. This is a serious matter—a matter of substance. We recognise that. The number of my colleagues who have attended the debate, the thought that they have given to the Bill and the thoughtful speeches that they have made are ample evidence of that.
The matter that we are now considering—which we should not rush, either—in the light of what has been dealt with so far today, in the light of the debate on Second Reading, which some hon. Members now in the Chamber have just sat through, is whether it is reasonable and proper, in parliamentary terms, in scrutiny terms, in legislative terms, for us to rush into Committee without a chance for reflection. Should we do so without a chance, if I even dare suggest it, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to have discussions with the Minister, to discover whether something might be worked out?
I sensed that there was some common ground, in spite of the Minister's bluster. I sensed that the reasonableness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire might have provided the basis of an agreement; but can we do that on the hoof? I doubt it. I doubt that we shall get a quality of outcome from this matter if there is an attempt to rush the Bill through.
These are serious and weighty matters, which the House must consider, and I hope that due consideration can be given. As you have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remain to be convinced that we are ready for the matter to be dealt with now, as opposed to at a reasonable future date. Unless I am much more convinced than I have been by the Minister, that would remain my view. I hope that he will reflect on that and realise that we are—I probably speak for all of my colleagues—in a mood to be helpful on this if only he will help us. That is all I am asking. It is not an unreasonable request.
The Minister must learn that even the present Government must understand that there is give and take in this process. We are prepared to give rather a lot, but we should like some latitude from the Government on this matter, perhaps starting now.

Mr. Malins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right; the Minister gave no help on Second Reading. He was utterly dismissive of many of our arguments. Specifically, we repeatedly asked what the nature of the consultation was and whether presiding judges were consulted. Were the Crown court circuit judges, the Bar Council or the Law Society consulted? Who was consulted? We received no answer.
Throughout the debate, no Member was on the Labour Benches, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), whose contribution we might have welcomed, as he has a distinguished career in the law. Perhaps he had been told to keep his mouth shut and not to say a word. As it was, questions such as those that I would have expected a man of his intelligence to ask were asked by Conservative Members, and not one received a proper answer. That is why I share the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Hoon: We are debating whether this matter should proceed immediately into Committee. We have heard a great deal of lyrical objection, especially from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I think will become celebrated, as a result of his contribution to the Second Reading debate, as the author of the phrase, the debate that we have had today indicates that we have a vigorous Opposition. Unfortunately, the vigorous Opposition on that occasion only amounted to the five Members who passed through the No Lobby, so the official Opposition managed to get fewer Members through the No Lobby than the number who spoke on Second Reading. Perhaps Conservative Members were so exhausted by the process of the Second Reading debate that they could not summon the vigour to walk through the No Lobby.
It is important for the House to realise that the official Opposition have had notice of our intention to deal with this matter for some seven days. During those seven days not a single representation was made from any Opposition Member, through the usual channels or in other ways, indicating any objection to this matter being dealt with through all its stages today. I urge the House to accept the motion.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: With the leave of the House. That is not good enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak for a second time in this debate.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to respond to the key issue in the debate

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He cannot make a second speech on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.

SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must inform the House that I have not been able to select the amendments tabled in manuscript form.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

QUALIFICATION FOR, AND TENURE OF, OFFICE

Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.—[Mr. Hoon.]

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I will respect your ruling, Sir Alan, and the House must abide by it. When Bills are taken at short notice, it is difficult for the House to obtain the best procedural value from the time available to us. We now have this clause stand part debate, and I intend to use it to focus again on the important questions that the Parliamentary Secretary utterly failed to answer.
There was one point on which the hon. Gentleman gave an answer, but I do not agree with it. I shall make this point to explain why hon. Members are being asked to stay here on a Thursday evening. If the permanent secretary is not a lawyer and does not have five years' experience in the Department, there is a great deal of sense in having somebody else in an acknowledged senior position who does. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will address that.

Mr. Hoon: I said on Second Reading that there is a senior legal adviser who works directly to the permanent secretary. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that such a figure, who is responsible for giving legal advice, is a sufficient satisfaction of his concerns.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am not satisfied with that. The very first point made by the Parliamentary Secretary when he was replying to the earlier debate was that this was simply a gaggle of lawyers articulating concern for a vested interest. I am a lawyer, and I am articulating concern for an interest, but it is not the interest of any private sector lawyer. I am concerned about the interest of 1,000 members of the Government Legal Service who hitherto have held this post for sound constitutional reasons.
We modified it so that, on occasion, somebody who had spent five years in the Department might be able to take their place as permanent secretary. The Government now find that inconvenient, presumably because they do not have anybody who has spent five years in the Department whom they are willing to appoint, or because they wish to go outside Government to find somebody who does not fall within the requirements of the current statute—that may not be wholly stupid, and, as I have said, we are not seeking completely to block this Bill.
However, it is important—the Parliamentary Secretary has not attempted to deal with this—that the Lord Chancellor should have at his right hand somebody with deep and practical experience of the workings of the Department, who has experience of close co-ordination


with the legal system generally, and the legal profession and the courts in particular. There is absolutely no reason why such a person should not be appointed as a deputy secretary.
To say that, in government generally, the post of deputy secretary has been faded out in recent years, is a truism. We have moved towards a more flexible system of senior management. However, this is an exceptional situation, and I would not have thought that the Government were in principle so rigid and hidebound as to be unable to look for a small but exceptional answer to a substantial but exceptional problem.
It is nonsense to say that no deputy secretary can be appointed in the Lord Chancellor's Department because there are no deputy secretaries in any other Department. It is not true. The Government could do that, and, if they are refusing to do so, they are being obdurate.
6.45 pm
I shall have to read Hansard to find out the Parliamentary Secretary's exact words about a senior legal adviser to the permanent secretary. We are asking for a senior legal adviser not to the permanent secretary but to the Lord Chancellor; somebody who has right of access to the Lord Chancellor's room in the same way as the permanent secretary. The permanent secretary can enter the Lord Chancellor's room on any occasion—it would be a strange Lord Chancellor who would not let that happen—to alert him to matters that may concern him. A deputy secretary should have that power. Why should he have that power?

Mr. Hoon: Since we are proceeding in this manner, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that, for a considerable time, it has not been the responsibility of the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to give legal advice to the Lord Chancellor. That advice is given by a specialist unit within the Department, which is there to give such advice. As I explained at some length earlier, the permanent secretary is no longer required to give advice to the Lord Chancellor.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That may be so, but it does not begin to answer the question. Obviously, I have not been the Lord Chancellor and I have not been junior Minister to the Lord Chancellor, although I dare to say that it was partly on my recommendation that such a post was created. I was Solicitor-General for five years, and I did all the Lord Chancellor's business in the House.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact, although the permanent secretary may not be the mainstream legal adviser to the Lord Chancellor, he has an important role in judicial appointments? When I was junior Minister to the Lord Chancellor it was made perfectly clear that I was excluded from any part of the functions relating to judicial appointments. The permanent secretary has that important role, and it is far from being administrative.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he has anticipated the very point that I was developing.

The Parliamentary Secretary should recognise, if he does not already from his six months or so in the Department, that we are not just talking about legal advice. We are talking about the long-standing comprehension of the legal system and the judiciary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, we are talking about judicial appointments, probity in government, things that can go wrong, and the opportunity for effective feedback from within the Government Legal Service.
The Government will not have to be in power for very long before they will find that Ministers who are not lawyers will want to do things which may not be consistent with the law. Civil servants who are "can do" civil servants will be appointed. In our parliamentary democracy, it is the Opposition's duty to point out such things, and I can recall occasions on which the Labour party in opposition pointed out that we had appointed people with too much of a "can do" attitude.
Without revealing too many secrets, I can say that, in my role as a Law Officer over 10 years, I had to make it perfectly clear that the law had to be respected. Having done that, the law was respected. Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, was absolutely scrupulous in her adherence to the law. Naturally, she would push the bounds of government as far as possible in the direction that she thought was politically correct, but, once she was advised that that was as far as she could go, she would reign back and find another way to do what she wanted, if it was lawfully doable.
I am sure that that would also be true of the present Prime Minister, and that he would have a deep respect for the law. However, if there is to be a deep respect for the law, the proprieties and the general understanding of how our constitution works, there must be somebody who can advise on that.
The Lord Chancellor has an immensely busy job. He is far busier than earlier Lord Chancellors. There is now an administrative overlay for the management of the courts, which was not the case previously. It is largely because of that administrative overlay that the Government want the opportunity to appoint somebody from outside the ranks of the profession—indeed, if necessary, outside any significant experience in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The Minister said that the previous Government had already prepared the ground, by changing the requirement for a lawyer of 10 years standing to somebody who had spent at least five years in the Department. He is now trying to sweep that away, so that somebody who has spent little or no time in the Department, and therefore has no feel for matters, can have the Lord Chancellor's ear. It is obvious from the Minister's earlier replies that the senior legal people will have to go through the permanent secretary, who will filter out information before it reaches the Lord Chancellor.
Even more important—as I imagine that the person concerned will be someone of great probity who will listen carefully to his legal adviser—that person will not have on-the-hoof experience. There will not be someone close to him who will hear the bells of propriety ring. Someone with an acknowledged position in the Department should be involved. Surely the Minister agrees that there will still be senior lawyers in high places in the Department.


What is needed is someone with an acknowledged position who has the ear of the Lord Chancellor as of right. Of course, out of courtesy that person would inform the permanent secretary before he went to see the Lord Chancellor—but he would be entitled to insist on going if the permanent secretary happened to say, "I do not think you should do that," or, "I would much rather you didn't do that." That is the sort of remark that tends to be made. It is the sort of remark that is made to lawyers. Of course, what tends to happen is that people do not really want too much legal advice, as it might not be terribly helpful.
The matter is important on two levels. First, there is the immensely practical point that the Lord Chancellor should have immediately available the benefit of the long-standing, consistent experience of the profession, the judicial system and the legalities, in the knowledge that, as holder of the office, it is his duty to act a watchdog.
If we were debating this issue with the Lord Chancellor now, I am sure that he would say that he could do a great deal of that for himself; but he would not be so arrogant as to say that he could do it all. The Minister, on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, should not be so arrogant as to suggest otherwise—[Interruption.] Perhaps I am doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice. However, that is why I say that he should look more carefully at the matter than he has so far shown himself willing to do.
The second point relates to the Government legal service. I am not arguing for lawyers qua lawyers; I am arguing in favour of members of a highly honourable branch of the public service—the Government legal service—who have probably spent all their working lives from their late 20s or early 30s to retirement advising Government, while being conscious of the legalities, the difficulties, the management problems—

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. Does he accept that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent any lawyer from the Government legal service—or, indeed, any lawyer from any other position—from applying for the job and being considered alongside others who apply?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a point of any weight, he has not understood my argument. Rather than repeat it, I invite him to read it in Hansard.
The 1,000 members of the Government legal service are attracted by the fascination of the work. The sheer level of legal work likely to be seen by a young man or woman in the service outstrips that which is available to all but a tiny handful of the Bar and solicitors' professions. No lawyer would gainsay that. Those lawyers in their 20s, 30s or even 40s in the Government legal service see matters of a weight and complexity that most private practitioners never see. Lawyers grow up in the service over many years, and build up a body of wisdom.
When lawyers move on to the administration of justice and the courts—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull knows so much because of his previous ministerial position—they know how a court case is run. Over the years, they have discussed the problems with the judges. When they become administrators, they bring with them a great background of real knowledge, just like those in the upper reaches of the health service who do a certain amount of administration.
Of course, sometimes people do not want to do that—they want to do clinical medicine and nothing else. However, it is hugely valuable to the health service when people with real hands-on experience of medicine go into management. That is how the Government legal service should work. There is a genuine danger, which, sadly, the Government are so far failing to recognise, that much of that will be lost or diminished if my sensible—indeed, friendly—suggestions, which I mentioned to the Lord Chancellor in advance of this debate, are simply brushed aside.
There is also a point about agism. I do not think anyone has given much thought to that; I admit that I had not until a week ago. However, the more 1 thought about the valuable service given by permanent secretaries who have run one, two or three years over their time, the more I thought how stupid and doctrinaire it would be to get rid of them.
That point deserves a sensible and reflective answer from the Minister—at least an answer along the lines, "As a junior Minister I cannot commit the Government here and now, but I will discuss the matter carefully with the Lord Chancellor. I promise that, even if this Bill passes all its stages in the House tonight"—as, I freely admit, I had anticipated—"I will consider the matter carefully before it goes to the other place, and at least seriously consider tabling amendments to meet the serious, sensible and reasoned objections that have been made."
I very much hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, I will receive a carefully considered and reflective answer to what I believe are genuine points of substance.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Even as we debate clause stand part, some emphasis should be laid—not least for the record—on the importance of judicial appointments when considering the qualities and qualifications that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor should hold.
As I said earlier, judicial appointments are scarcely a matter for the Executive. When I was a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, it was made abundantly clear to me—not in a menacing way, but in an entirely logical way—that my remit was to shadow the Lord Chancellor in all matters in the House of Commons, save judicial appointments. I was excluded from judicial appointments—quite rightly. They are personal to the Lord Chancellor and his immediate advisers.
Judicial appointments do not relate just to the odd judge here or there—they relate to the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, the entire High Court bench, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, every recorder and deputy recorder in England and Wales, the circuit bench and every magistrate in England and Wales, save in Lancashire.
The appointments are an enormous task, and a gigantic responsibility. Part of our security in the United Kingdom is based on our belief in freedom under the law. The law is very important, and the public's confidence in the law is extremely important. That public confidence begins with the Lord Chancellor's appointments.
The Lord Chancellor probably has as many appointments in his gift as any other Minister. However, the eternal weariness for any Lord Chancellor begins once—or sometimes twice—a year, when he must preside over the incredibly difficult and delicate matter of


determining who shall be appointed Queen's counsel and take silk, thereby reaching the zenith of a Bar career. What joy for those who take silk, and what utter dismay for those who are not chosen! In making the appointments, the Lord Chancellor has the most thankless role imaginable.
7 pm
Members of the Bar certainly do not regard that assessment of their worth as being administrative. Even now, I suggest that it is right for hon. Members to bear in mind the many roles of the Lord Chancellor. He sits in the other place—in a role equivalent to yours, Mr. Lord—on the Woolsack, he performs a thankless task in making judicial appointments, and he runs what has become a most controversial Department. As many hon. Members have pointed out in this debate, the Lord Chancellor's Department has changed from being a relatively small office with a relatively small range of functions into a very big Department that has in many ways entered the very centre of political argument.
Legal aid has become a much-argued-over benefit. It is part of the welfare system, and has its boundaries. People are disappointed if they do not receive a legal aid grant, and they cannot discern fairness in the system if they see someone else receive one. When I was a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, at least half of each Question Time was taken up with often argumentative and frequently aggressive questions on legal aid.
When questions were not on legal aid, they were on the provinces and jurisdictions of magistrates and magistrates courts committees. The magistracy has been in the United Kingdom for 600 years and is independent of the circuit court system. It is the jewel in the crown of the judicial system. Appointments to the magistrates' bench are delicate and crucial. There have been political arguments over the political complexion of magistrates, and questions such as, what does the balance of the magistracy look like? Are there more of these, or more of those? Those matters are worth arguing and debating.
Magistrates are fiercely independent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is most eloquently making the key point. He has referred to the legal aid system and to the magistracy, and undoubtedly he is about to refer to the court system. If one is to administer those systems, one must understand them. Does he not agree that, without having available a senior person who has been through the mill and understands it, the Department will be diminished?

Mr. Taylor: I could not agree more with my right hon. and learned Friend, because he has stated the case exactly.
I realise that legal aid is run by a semi-independent agency. Nevertheless, that agency spends taxpayers' money, and it is now spending about £1 .5 billion per annum, which is a very serious sum. In many ways, it is to be welcomed that the new Labour Government are developing thoughts that might have existed in a previous Administration—but I will not go over that ground.
The Government are showing some fortitude in dealing with the legal aid system, which must be dealt with. The Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified the

accounts of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the past six years. The Department's accounts have not passed muster, because there has been no evident control over legal aid spending.
I wanted primarily to deal with the permanent secretary's role in judicial appointments, but, in doing so, I have enlarged my case by saying that he holds an important political and mainstream governmental role, with heavy judicial responsibility. Rightly, the qualities of the person to do the job are closely scrutinised. In this debate, I hope that Conservative Members have been trying to scrutinise those qualities closely.

Mr. Burnett: For the reasons that I have already given on Second Reading, we support the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the two points that I made in that debate. For his recollection, I will repeat them, but in precis form.
The first point was on the method of selection for the permanent secretary. The second point—for which I quoted from Sir Peter Middleton's recent report on legal aid—was to question whether the Government are minded to concentrate the various judicial functions and the various Departments into one separate, distinct Ministry.

Mr. Hawkins: I expressed some concerns about the Bill in the Second Reading debate. The longer debate on the Bill continues—both on Second Reading and in Committee—the more my concern increases. I paid generous compliments to the Minister in the earlier debate, but I may have overstated them. He has certainly failed to respond to the very legitimate concerns—particularly on the lack of consultation—raised by my hon. Friends and myself.
As the Minister may recall, I served on the Bar Council for seven years, until 1995, when I became a parliamentary private secretary. For the last three of those years, I was on the council's general management committee, which acts as a type of inner cabinet. In my remarks earlier today, it had certainly not occurred to me—the fact was revealed later, by questioning by Conservative Members—that there had been no consultation on the Bill with any of the legal professional bodies. The Bar Council has not been consulted, the Law Society has not been consulted, and even the civil servants' trade union has not been consulted.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Ministers have been caught out practising government by press release, by spin doctoring and by anything other than the normal democratic process. I am particularly pleased that Conservative Members have followed up on some of the attacks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on the Government's attempt to push through the Bill without debate.
The manner in which the Bill has been passed will be very much noted among the professional bodies, who will regard it as a straw in the wind, or perhaps even more, showing the extent to which they will have to watch the Government—as Conservative Members intend to watch the Government—every step of the way. Ministers are constantly attempting to evade debate and to move it away from the Chamber and from those of us who have been democratically elected to scrutinise legislation, and to pass on the blind side as many measures as possible.


The Government have clearly been caught out trying to pass this Bill on the blind side, but they have not succeeded—thanks to the vigilance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and other hon. Members. The Bill's passage has provided a classic example.
I hope that the Minister will do the House the courtesy of addressing the very serious issues raised by hon. Members in this debate. We still have absolutely no answer to many questions. What about the issue of people who have given long and loyal service in the Lord Chancellor's Department and who will be unable to continue doing so beyond a purely arbitrary age limit? Such a limit is clearly against the public interest, and the House will have to hear the Minister's answer to that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—who served as a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department in the previous Government—has raised a much more serious issue, which I will not repeat, and could not deal with half so well. It is absolutely essential that the person who holds the job of permanent secretary should himself have the legal experience necessary to discharge the functions of advising the Lord Chancellor on judicial appointments—of which there are so many, as my hon. Friend said—or, at the very least, have a deputy who has legal qualifications or long experience of service in the Department.
How can someone who has pursued an administrative career path but has no experience of the specific mysteries and specialist concerns of the law possibly discharge the function of properly advising the Lord Chancellor? All hon. Members who have some experience of the legal profession are bound to be worried about that especially serious concern. We want the Minister to deal with such points in his first response to the clause stand part debate.
Finally, I had hoped for better from the Minister than the high-handed approach which I know has come to him from those in other offices in the Government. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio has been sending him pager messages, telling him to dismiss all the relevant points that my colleagues have been making, but I hope that at long last we shall hear a proper answer.

Mr. Grieve: I want to pick up a point that arose earlier. The Minister suggested dismissively that because in 1990 there had been an alteration to the previous requirement that the permanent secretary be a lawyer, the arguments being advanced by Opposition Members about the likely changes that the present proposals would make to whether the permanent secretary was a lawyer were irrelevant.

Mr. Hoon: Bogus.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister is excelling himself in the courtesy he extends to Conservative Members. The matter clearly requires even more prolonged discussion.
An alteration was made in 1990. I should be interested to hear what position Labour Members took on it. It was possible, in certain circumstances, to enable a civil servant who had experience of the Department, but who might not be legally qualified, to become a permanent secretary. I do not disagree with that for one moment, because, as I told the Minister on Second Reading, I accept that the

Department had a complex role and that its administrative role had grown considerably. I said that I had some sympathy for the underlying problems that might have led to the Bill being introduced.
Far from seeking to rubbish the Bill, I appreciate that there may be sound reasons for it. I should like the Minister to present them to us, but I am at a loss to understand why the Government are attempting to rush it through the House without consultation.
The permanent secretary shoulders a great burden of responsibility. It is all very well our being told that the legal adviser will always be there, but he is there to advise on legal matters. The Minister knows, or should know, given his qualification as a barrister, that, although the legal profession may have its detractors, one of its strengths is that, within a relatively small compass, there is a large pool of talent comprising solicitors and barristers who are capable of going on to hold high judicial office. It is one of the principal roles of the permanent secretary to identify them, to maintain good links with the judiciary and the relevant professional bodies and to advise the Lord Chancellor about them. I infer—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that the legal adviser has absolutely no role whatsoever in that. Therefore, our arguments are relevant.
It is not acceptable to introduce the Bill simply because it is administratively convenient. The previous arrangements spelled out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended, state, significantly, that the first consideration is whether a person is legally qualified and that the secondary is to ascertain whether a person, if not legally qualified, has at least five years' service in the Department. I have examined the statute carefully.
Any changes should not be rushed. I am concerned about the absence of consultation, but I am perhaps even more concerned that such a Bill should be rushed through simply because it happens to be administratively convenient in November 1997. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the points that I have outlined and to treat Opposition Members with the courtesy that I hope we have extended to him.

Mr. Hoon: I have been asked to consider the arguments carefully. I hope that hon. Members agree that I set out carefully at the beginning of Second Reading why it was necessary for the Government to introduce the Bill at this stage. If there were any doubts about the need to change the present restrictions, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) put them very well. He said that the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important political, mainstream Government role. He outlined the responsibility that anyone who holds such a position should have.
Opposition Members have confirmed me in my view that it is vital that the Lord Chancellor's Department should have the same opportunity to select a permanent secretary as is available to other major Departments of State. In making that selection, the Lord Chancellor's Department should not be constrained by rules that have long since lost their function. In my careful presentation at the beginning of Second Reading, I rehearsed the history of the matter. I am sorry that Opposition Members did not listen with sufficient care and attention as I pointed out that the problem surrounding the question of legal advice has long since passed into history. I hope


that that deals satisfactorily with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
7.15 pm
The right hon. and learned Member also referred to the retirement age. Once again, the Bill is designed to bring the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department into line with that of every other permanent secretary. It will be possible for the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to stay on by arrangement beyond the age of 60, with the agreement and co-operation of the head of the civil service. That is exactly the position of every permanent secretary.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister clarify what difference the Bill is making? How is the Bill changing the situation?

Mr. Hoon: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the formal retirement age is to change, but he was anxious that we should recognise the skills and qualities of someone who might attain the age of 60 but who still has a considerable contribution to make to the country. I am clarifying for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the position of the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department and, indeed, that of any other permanent secretary. In the circumstances that we are debating, it will be possible, by arrangement, for a person to continue in post.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West and Torridge—

Mr. Burnett: Torridge and West Devon.

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman made two points. First, the Government remain committed to an independent civil service. The selection process will be the same as for other permanent secretaries. Secondly, we shall consider the Middleton recommendation for a single Ministry of justice. We are already considering Sir Peter Middleton's recommendations, but I have to say that the Government have no present plans to implement the particular recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I was greatly entertained by the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I should perhaps not rise to the bait. He was more moderate in Committee than on Second Reading. The constitution seems likely to survive the shock that the modest change introduced by the Bill might cause it. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's willingness to watch the Government every step of the way. I assure him that in this Parliament he will have plenty of watching to do as we ensure that the promises made to the electorate in the Government's manifesto, on which Labour was elected overwhelmingly—including to the Blackpool seat that he formerly occupied—are carried out.
I cannot avoid dealing with the argument put forward by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that we are rushing the Bill through on the blind side. They both know full well that

it was thoroughly advertised—as is all business in the House—on the previous Thursday. Only very recently have the Conservatives decided to prolong the debate. The proposal is modest and I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Pope.]

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief, because my points are easily understood. I regret that the Minister, who, I believe, has a degree from Harvard, has answered only one of my questions and has not sought to respond to the detailed points that I put to him about the role of a deputy secretary in the Department.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering about the ability of a permanent secretary in any Department to continue in office after the age of 60 if the public interest requires it. To some extent, his helpful answer has allayed my concern. However, he must know that he has not addressed my detailed and formidable arguments about why there should be someone in the Department with a particular responsibility and the opportunity to have the ear of the Lord Chancellor to deal with the many non-administrative matters that are profoundly important to that unique office, should the Lord Chancellor require it or should a senior person realise that he needs it and that it is his duty to give it.
I very much hope that that point will be pursued further in another place and that the Government will reflect more closely on my detailed arguments before the Bill reaches another place. I hope that they look sympathetically, albeit not in this House, on amendments such as those that I have suggested.

Mr. Forth: The debate has covered substance and style. It is right that the substance of the Bill should be considered. I say that it should be, but that requires the participation not just of the Opposition, carrying out their duty to scrutinise proposals, but of the Government, personified in this case by the Minister. I regret that he has failed to satisfy us on the key issues that we have raised time and again. He has given scant regard to our arguments of substance about the nature of the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the role of that individual and the qualifications required. He has failed to persuade us that the matter is as simple as he has argued, however brief, peremptory and superficial those arguments were.
The Minister has not deal at all with the mandatory age of retirement of the permanent secretary. That may appear to be a subsidiary detail, but its importance ranges beyond the measure before us, because it sends out a signal. We are being asked to approve the idea of a mandatory civil service retirement age of 60. I am not satisfied with


that. In the one Department that has some flexibility, we are doing away with it and imposing a mandatory retirement age. That is a gratuitously unnecessary proposal which the Minister has made no attempt to justify. It is important that our objections should be firmly on the record. I hope that we shall return to the matter at an appropriate time.
The debate has also been about style. If the Minister had listened carefully to our arguments, put in good faith, and had attempted more comprehensively and courteously to reply, he might have made rather more rapid progress. I say that in as friendly a way as I can. He may wish to reflect on that. However, that is water under the bridge, and need not be dwelt on unduly.
The Minister has laboured the point several times that we should all have known about the Bill. He has told us that there were understandings and that he is mystified as to why so much fuss has been made. I am a humble out-of-touch Opposition Back Bencher. I am not privy to conversations that may take place in dark corners and secret locations. I read the Order Paper in good faith. Today's Order Paper says:
Supreme Court (Offices) Bill: Second Reading
Remaining stages may also be taken.
I take the word "may" at face value. The Order Paper does not say that deals have been done and understandings have been reached, so we should not look at the matter too closely and get away early; it says that the remaining stages may be taken. To me, that means that, if there has been satisfactory consideration on Second Reading, if there are no points of substance dividing the Opposition and the Government and if those who have taken the trouble to attend the debate and listen to the Minister are satisfied, it would be proper for the matter to be dealt with rather more rapidly than most other measures.
None of those conditions has been fulfilled. It was not only proper, but a duty, for the Opposition to seek more elucidation from the Minister. The fact that we have failed is a matter of great regret, but we shall make a note for the future. Perhaps as well as reading the Order Paper I should make inquiries of those in the know to find out whether I shall be required simply to nod something through or whether I am expected to discharge my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament by scrutinising the Government's proposals. Those matters are all to be resolved.
I hope that there is ample evidence on the record from the points made by Conservative Members that we are distinctly unhappy about the measure—its substance and the way in which it was brought to the House. We have tried not to be unduly obstructive—and, I think, succeeded. The Minister will be allowed to take his Bill forward.
I hope that those in another place will read the report of this debate. They may well conclude that the Bill deserves more scrutiny and answers to the questions that were not answered in this House. Given that it is the Lord Chancellor's business, they may well take that opportunity. I hope that they do.

Mr. Grieve: One or two points arise out of the way in which the debate has been conducted. One of the reasons

for having debate is that Ministers should answer questions that are asked. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department is always courteous and is normally assiduous in answering questions, which is not the case with most of his colleagues. In winding-up speeches, we are frequently treated to cheap moments of invective, the sidelining of points and a little bit of propaganda, after which the Minister sits down.
I make that point because in Committee two pertinent questions were asked by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) which the Minister made no attempt to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] I did not get that impression.

Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman may have been confused by the fact that the Minister called me the Member for Bolton, West and Torridge.

Mr. Grieve: I did not pick that point up.
Will the Minister confirm that the Bill is not a prelude to merging two Departments to create a Department of justice? I assume that the Minister would have told us if that was the intention. On Third Reading, it would be helpful to have reassurance on that pertinent point. The present structure of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the marriage between the Executive and the judicial capacity embodied in the Lord Chancellor, which is valuable and unique to this country, would be seriously jeopardised if the Government intended to merge two Departments. I should be grateful for reassurance. On that basis, and as the matter has been well aired. I am happy to allow the Bill to proceed without a Division.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to a lively debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) commented on the importance of style. He described the unhappy transformation that he appears to have endured—from powerful Minister and Privy Councillor to, as he rather sadly described it, humble out-of-touch Opposition Member. It may be a measure of the Conservative party's decline that such Conservative Members are here to deal with the matter at length.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that we have had a full and detailed discussion. There are, however, one or two matters that, in the light of comments made on Third Reading, I must repeat for the avoidance of doubt. I have repeatedly said that there is a legal adviser in the Lord Chancellor's Department who works directly to the permanent secretary. I have stressed that point several times during our proceedings, but for the avoidance of doubt, I do so again.
I answered the point about a Department of justice, but I repeat my answer: the Government have no present plans to act on Sir Peter Middleton's recommendation. I hope that Opposition Members are satisfied that the Bill introduces a very modest change that will benefit public administration by removing an outdated restriction that has become anomalous.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which bans any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. The United Kingdom is one of the states whose ratification is a precondition for the treaty's entry into force.
The contents of the Bill are, for the most part, highly technical, but that should not be allowed to obscure its much wider political significance. In simple terms, the Bill is about taking the next step—and a significant one, at that—towards the Government's goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Government are serious about that goal. We are committed to pressing for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We have made it clear that, when we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of global elimination, we shall ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations.
We intend to make a difference in this area, as in so many areas of Government policy. We can make a difference, and we intend to do so. Our approach to multilateral disarmament will not be grudging and it will not be one that plays up the obstacles to progress in order to leave things as they are. We intend to be a constructive actor in the process, using our influence to move things forward where we can.
We also approach the matter in a practical fashion. We know that progress towards our goal requires the agreement of the other nuclear weapons states, including some with massively larger holdings than ours. Progress will also depend on the co-operation of the many other states that have no declared nuclear capacity. Let us be clear, however, that we have the vision and will to reach our goal and the commitment to build support for the steps that will mark the way. We shall look for progress simultaneously in a range of areas—transparency, confidence building and a fissile material cut-off treaty—as well as seeking to build on the warhead reductions already achieved. The Bill demonstrates the magnitude of the task, but it also underlines the fact that political will brings results. This Government will never concede that the task is hopeless.
The comprehensive test ban treaty is the culmination of almost 40 years of effort involving painstaking negotiations. When the parties to the non-proliferation treaty agreed a set of principles and objectives in 1995, they described a comprehensive test ban treaty as the next step on the road to nuclear disarmament. We are fully committed to the goals set out in those principles and objectives, and we welcome the CTBT now agreed accordingly. As its preamble makes clear, the treaty will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, and end the development of advanced new types. That is truly an important step forward.
The United Kingdom signed the treaty on 24 September 1996. Some 147 other states have now signed the treaty and seven have ratified it. It will come into force six months after the 44 states named in its annexe have ratified it. Those states all took part in the negotiations on the treaty in the conference on disarmament in 1996 and are listed by the International Atomic Energy Authority as having a civil nuclear capability. The United Kingdom is one of those states, 41 of which have already signed.
North Korea, Pakistan and India still have not signed. We are doing what we can, both unilaterally and in concert with others, to encourage all three states to sign and ratify the treaty quickly. A question mark, however, must remain over their commitment to the eventual goal of global nuclear disarmament if they stand in the way of the necessary interim steps.
We are making swift progress with the legislation needed to ratify the treaty. Indeed, when the Bill was introduced in another place, it passed through unamended. We hope to be the first nuclear weapons state to ratify; that will be a further demonstration of our commitment to the treaty, to nuclear disarmament and to non-proliferation.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, who played such an important part in getting the treaty signed in 1996, as the Minister mentioned earlier?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no difficulty in paying tribute to those who took part in a step which I have described as significant. It would be churlish to say that those who played a part did not contribute to taking events forward.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my next words in the spirit in which they are intended. The world has to do a lot more and we shall look for his support when we begin to push the agenda forward in the weeks and months to come. The real battle concerns where we go next. The Bill has already completed its passage of the other place unamended, and I am sure that we shall see the same co-operation in this House.
The treaty establishes a number of new international bodies to ensure that its provisions are properly observed. A comprehensive test ban treaty organisation will be set up in Vienna once the treaty enters into force. It will work closely with the International Atomic Energy Authority and other relevant organisations.
Part of the treaty organisation will be a technical secretariat, which will be responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the treaty. To that end, the treaty will set up an international monitoring system, which will consist of a worldwide network of monitoring stations. A number of those are in the United Kingdom and dependent territories.
The stations will use various technologies to detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world. The data from the stations will be transmitted to an international data centre, which will be part of the technical secretariat in Vienna. The international data centre will then make the information available to state parties. Meanwhile, until entry into force, a preparatory commission is working in Vienna to develop the many detailed arrangements for implementation of the treaty, including the establishment of the international monitoring system.


The verification regime in the treaty provides for consultation and clarification in cases of indications of possible non-compliance. If necessary, and if a certain proportion of state parties agree, an on-site inspection can start within 96 hours of it being requested. The inspections will be carried out by trained inspectors chosen from an agreed international list of experts, who will report back to the technical secretariat and state parties.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On verification, how concerned are the Government about the fact that there appear to have been explosions in, for example, the Russian arctic, which it appears seismic technology has not been capable of verifying as definite nuclear explosions? Is not verification the crucial issue? After all, we had only a partial nuclear test ban treaty—a treaty covering only atmospheric explosions—because it was impossible for many decades to check what was going on underground. If explosions are taking place which have not been correctly verified, a large part of the rationale for the treaty could be undermined.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation. It is, however, our view that the events in the Russian arctic were much more likely to have been caused by an earthquake. Britain has significant relative expertise in seismic areas, and it was certainly the view of our experts that that was the most likely course of events. The advantage of a CTBT coming into operation is that it will provide a challenge mechanism—an opportunity where there are doubts about the credibility and good faith of the parties to the treaty—that will enable an inspection to be set up and conducted very quickly. The treaty will enable us to do a lot more than we are able to under the present system. It both advances the need for science, in which countries such as Britain have expertise, and provides an opportunity for us to pursue matters beyond simple scientific measuring from a distance, by enabling us to look actively at what happens on site. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister say something about sub-critical explosions and the concern that tests of very small weapons—mini neutron bombs and the like—which may find themselves excluded from the treaty de facto, could occur because it is difficult to know whether they have taken place? Will the Minister give a view on those problems?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right; sub-critical tests are not prohibited by the treaty. It is necessary, in order to maintain not only the viability but the safety of existing nuclear weapons systems, that sub-critical tests are part of the opportunities available to all nuclear weapon states. Rather than seeing the issue as potentially threatening, I suggest that it is the opposite. It is a necessary safeguard for the whole world that nuclear weapon states maintain the opportunity to take advantage of sub-critical tests. I hope that that reassurance will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. The issues are important.
The United Kingdom has for many years had a national research programme into the means of detecting and verifying nuclear explosions. The programme enabled the United Kingdom to play a major role in the negotiations on how best to verify the treaty. We aim to retain

a national capability to allow us to reach an independent judgment on the data produced by the international monitoring system. That will strengthen our ability to justify a request for an on-site inspection of exactly the kind that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and I have been discussing.
With the advent of the treaty, the implications of any changes or deterioration in our Trident warheads will have to be assessed without nuclear testing. Similarly, after any corrective action or refurbishment, we will have to requalify warheads as safe and reliable without nuclear testing. Those requirements will place great demands on the alternatives to nuclear testing. I can tell the hon. Member for Chichester that we intend to use experiments and computer simulation for that purpose. Both are consistent with the terms of the treaty. I hope that the House will accept that that is agreed by all parties to the treaty, not just by the nuclear weapons states.
The treaty requires each state party to establish a national authority to act as the point of contact with the treaty organisation and to be the focal point for the operation of the treaty on its territory. In the UK, the national authority will be set up in the Ministry of Defence.
Although notes on clauses will be available in the Library, I shall turn briefly to the Bill's provisions. As its title suggests, its provisions fall into two broad categories: those relating to the prohibition of nuclear explosions and those enabling inspections to be carried out in the UK under the terms of the treaty.
Clauses 1 and 2 make it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to cause a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, other than a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict. The offence can be committed in the United Kingdom by anyone. Abroad, the offence can be committed by UK nationals and corporations.
Clauses 4 to 9 cover various aspects of inspections in the UK, such as their formal authorisation by the Secretary of State and the necessary privileges and immunities for the inspection teams. Clause 10 covers the issue of warrants authorising entry and search of premises if offences are suspected. Clauses 11 to 15 contain various technical provisions, and also provide for the Act to bind the Crown.
As I said at the outset, although the Bill is essentially technical, it nevertheless has a significance way beyond that narrow technical remit. It is a genuine pleasure to hold my office at a time when such a significant step on the way to our undoubted goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons is being taken. In passing the measure, the House will be playing its part in that process. The Government's commitment is that, once we have taken this step, we will return with determination to the task of carrying the agenda forward.

Mr. David Faber: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House and echo his warm words of support for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Opposition welcome the Bill. As he said, it received a fair wind in another place. We recognise that it provides the legislation necessary to ratify the treaty. He has given us a very full and detailed technical explanation of the Bill's contents, for which I am grateful.


Like the Government, the Opposition believe that the world will ultimately be a safer place through the signing of the treaty. The signing of the treaty and discussion of the Bill show that the international community can, by acting with determination, while making sacrifices, reap the benefits at the end of the cold war and the desire for a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of all countries throughout the world.
The former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, said on the very day that he signed the treaty in New York on 24 September last year:
It is our firm conviction that this treaty is in the interests of all, and I urge all states to give it their full support.
The full support of all states is, of course, crucial to the success of the treaty.
As the Minister rightly said, the signing of the treaty has come after a long process—many decades—of negotiation. Since 1989 particularly, we have seen profound and significant changes throughout Europe. More people than ever now live in democratic societies. The spread of democracy has made war less likely and the curtailment of the arms race ultimately more achievable.
Threats to our society remain, however, and it is only right that we, as a country and as part of the international community, should recognise and be alert to them. The Opposition remain absolutely committed to our nuclear deterrent and to keeping it fully serviced and updated to counter any potential threat we might face.
It is a shame that the Minister of State did not take the opportunity to reassert the Government's—and his personal—support for the retention and upgrading of the nuclear deterrent, given that he and many of his colleagues have called for the cancellation of the Trident programme in the past.
As Baroness Symons pointed out on Second Reading in another place, the implications of the treaty are profound, and the Minister of State rightly reminded us of that. Any deterioration in the Trident warheads will have to be assessed without recourse to nuclear testing. Such requirements will undoubtedly place an ever greater demand on the computer simulation techniques that provide an alternative and on the shared information and technology that we pool with our allies. However, I know that all hon. Members will agree that that is preferable, and that the treaty must succeed in its ultimate aim to do away for ever with nuclear testing, of whatever sort, and thus lead to a steady reduction in the world's nuclear arsenal.
The Minister of State was helpful in his explanation of the mechanisms in the Bill and the organisations that will flow from it for the monitoring and inspection of nuclear weapons, and he answered questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). However, he skirted quickly over the issue of ratification. He said that, to date, 147 countries had signed the treaty. According to the Library, 148 countries have signed the treaty, but perhaps the Library has added a country. Of those 147, only seven have so far ratified the treaty and, of the 44 required to sign to bring the treaty into force, I understand that only Japan has ratified it.
I do not suggest that the vast majority of states have anything other than an intention to ratify the treaty, and it is accepted under international law that a moratorium

comes into effect once the process of ratification has begun. Both France and China have now agreed to abide by that understanding. However, problems exist in other countries. The Minister of State mentioned three in particular and I shall turn to those in a moment.
The most important country involved is the United States. Does the Minister of State have any information from his American counterparts about when ratification will take place there? President Clinton recently told the United Nations Assembly that the treaty would be presented to the Senate shortly, but some in American political circles are concerned about several aspects of the treaty, including compliance verification and the safety and reliability of their nuclear arsenal. Clearly, it is important that the rest of the world see that the one remaining super-power takes a strong lead, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will encourage American ratification as soon as possible. It is important that we, as another major nuclear power, set a good example, and I assume that the United Kingdom will ratify the treaty as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
On the vexed question of the signature of the treaty by India and Pakistan, it is of primary importance that India signs the treaty, as it is likely that Pakistan would follow suit. On Second Reading in another place, Lord Jenkins of Putney called on the Minister to use Labour's long and, for the most part, friendly relationship with India to push for a resolution to the problem. At that stage, he could not predict the Foreign Secretary's disastrous visit to India this summer and the insensitivity that he showed to the Indian Government.
I was surprised that the Minister of State made no mention of the trip in his speech. Can he tell us anything about the discussions that the Foreign Secretary had with his Indian counterparts? Did he push for Indian ratification, and what response did he get? Baroness Symons referred to the sacrifices made by this country in signing the treaty and to the moral arguments that the Government would bring to bear on India. What were those arguments, were they forcefully made, and what response was received?
The most worrying case is that of North Korea. It is clear that, in spite of repeated warnings from the international community, North Korea continues to develop and improve its ballistic capability. Whether it yet possesses the technology to put nuclear warheads on those ballistic weapons, we do not know. However, we live in dangerous times. Economic deprivation is rife in North Korea, and the leadership is constantly looking for ways to deflect local attention from the domestic crisis. Anti-western rhetoric is usually the favourite course and we have all seen many examples of that.
When the former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, visited South Korea in January this year, he made clear the then Government's support for the United States policy in the region. The response in one of the North Korean newspapers was to condemn his bellicose utterances. It continued:
Our people and army are keeping a close eye on the British military whipping up war fever in the Korean peninsula.
I understand that the Minister and some of his colleagues may have a problem, because in the past many of them have held strong views on Korea. Indeed, the Minister has gone so far as to describe American troops in South Korea as a major obstacle to peace talks and to call for their withdrawal. Can he tell us about the


Government's view of the continuing tension in that country and how it might be persuaded to sign the test ban treaty? Is it now the policy of the Government to stand four square alongside our United States allies in that region?
On Second Reading in another place, Lord Moynihan referred to the real problems that the world faces as a result of the possible proliferation of rogue states. Some such states seem positively to revel in their status as the bad boys of the world. While the specific strategic threat to Europe from a communist Soviet Union may have evaporated, we are only too aware of—and frequently debate—the many localised flashpoints around the world.
The procurement of nuclear weapons by several states could quickly turn localised problems into very real concerns for the international community. Both Iran and Libya appear to be working hard to develop their nuclear capacity and to acquire the technology. In Iraq, the situation is very tense, and it is worrying to suppose that the reason why the Iraqi authorities have suddenly cut access for United Nations inspectors is because they have been close to discovering evidence of a nuclear programme. What are the Government's current views on the stand-off in Iraq? Can the Minister confirm that we also stand four square alongside our United States allies on that issue?
No less a figure than the Foreign Secretary himself once criticised the bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf war because it would make it more difficult to achieve peace and security. I hope that that is no longer his view, because those sentiments now seem out of place and old-fashioned. I hope that we are maintaining good relations with the United States and doing all that we can to support the United Nations inspection regime in Iraq.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield reminded us, the Conservatives are proud of the role played by the previous Government in bringing the treaty to fruition. We will do all we can to support the Government in pushing for ratification by all the states. I look forward to ratification by this country as soon as possible and to the Government playing an enthusiastic role in persuading others to do likewise. Once that is achieved, the treaty can begin to fulfil its vital role.

Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to speak on this important Bill and to welcome whole-heartedly its speedy introduction by the Government. I hope that it makes fast progress through the House, because it is an historic Bill and will achieve a result that we have desired for a long time. It is surprising that, after the sound and fury of the preceding debate, in which many Conservative Members felt prompted to participate, the Opposition Benches are much emptier for proceedings on this Bill, which is of much more significance than the privileges of lawyers.
The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is an important stepping stone to what I am sure everyone wants to see—the eventual multilateral elimination of nuclear weapons. I hope that ratification will take place at the earliest possible opportunity. However, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has suggested, there are problems with ratification. It is no fault of the Government—or even of the previous Government's negotiations—that the ratification process will be so

rigidly applied that it will be difficult to ensure that the worldwide ban comes into effect at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the three states that are refusing to sign, or have said that they are not prepared to do so at the moment. The situation in India and Pakistan is different from that in North Korea. We should—perhaps we do—have some influence with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary, in what we are told was a thoroughly successful trip to the Indian sub-continent, may have had discussions on that points, and I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. Those countries are also members of the Commonwealth, and if that is to mean anything, it surely means that we can apply influence on a matter of such great importance.
There is also a problem with the United States, where a two-thirds majority is needed to achieve ratification. The chairman of the Senate's foreign affairs committee may have a different view from some Senators on this. Are there measures that the Government can take to reassure our American allies and allay doubts in the American legislature?
Baroness Symons said in another place on 24 July that the British Government would do all they could to encourage the signing and ratification by all states. I should be interested to know what progress has been made towards that objective and what action the Government have taken to engage the attention of allies around the world and encourage them towards signature and ratification.
There are also problems for Britain in the application of the treaty. Only America has the computer technology available to simulate testing and ensure proper maintenance. It is an interesting reflection on Britain's independent deterrent that the only way we can test it is to go to America. Therefore, America has complete control over our deterrent.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of the software used by the United States for computer simulation was developed in the United Kingdom by UK engineers?

Mr. Heath: I am aware of that, but it is under the control of the United States. Does Britain have the technology to provide a British alternative to testing and simulation in this country so that we do not have to subscribe to an American hegemony? How else are we to know whether the warheads on the British deterrent are safe and functional? That is a matter of importance if Britain is to have confidence in the process.

Mr. Tyrie: I think that I am right in saying that our nuclear weapons would be targeted from Omaha and, to all intents and purposes, co-operation would be required with the Americans for our missiles to be successfully launched and delivered to their target. In those circumstances, the idea of total independence is a fiction.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that I was seeking to make.
Is there no scope within the treaty for a commitment not to work on qualitative improvements to nuclear technology, and should not the British Government pursue


that as a further objective? It is absent from the treaty, but it is likely to undermine the confidence of non-nuclear powers if they are aware of further improvements in nuclear weapons technology made by the nuclear powers, yet outwith the terms of the treaty.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) made a good point about sub-critical testing, and the Minister's response was a little sanguine. However necessary sub-critical testing may seem to a Government undertaking it, it none the less undermines confidence in the process of non-proliferation and de-escalation of nuclear weapons. The Government have a role in urging their allies not to engage in actions that would undermine that process.
There may well be a legal requirement in the treaty. The hon. Member for Westbury referred to article 18 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. That clearly lays a responsibility on other countries, following their signature on a treaty, not to do anything that would undermine the spirit of that treaty while awaiting its entry into force. I must ask whether American sub-critical testing does or does not do that. I must ask whether the underground tremor in the Russian arctic does that. The Minister was happy to ascribe that tremor to a seismic disturbance; I am not sure that everyone would do that, and certainly we do not have the technology to be sure. It is clear to me that all signatories must refrain from any behaviour that undermines the treaty as a whole.
Are we confident that we have the verification methods available to be sure that the treaty is being complied with? Is the sensor network sufficiently sophisticated? Does it have a sufficiently wide geographical spread? Is the international monitoring sufficiently robust to provide reassurance, as that is critical to the process?
There are further moves that the British Government could make. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to some of those during the defence debate this week, and it would be otiose of me to repeat them. I hope that the Government, having taken the welcome step of introducing the Bill at an early stage, will apply all their energies to diplomatic initiatives to take the measure one stage further.
It is not good enough for our Government to stay silent when these matters are discussed. They must take the initiative so that we can move on to serious talks on strategic arms reduction. We could show an example by ensuring that the number of warheads on Trident is no less and no more than those on Polaris, which it replaces. That would show that we were prepared to take the initiative in moving global nuclear disarmament forward. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points, but meanwhile I repeat that the Liberal Democrats will give him every support to ensure the swift passage of the Bill through the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Nobody who lived through the Cuban missile crisis could do anything other than welcome the Bill, and we hope that the comprehensive test ban treaty will soon be ratified. I recall when I was at school that an air-raid siren was placed on top of the building at the time of the Cuban crisis. There was a real fear among children in their early teens, as I was at the time. I hope that we never witness anything like that again.
During an intervention on the Minister, I talked about the role of the previous Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, but he was not just there to take part in discussions. A briefing prepared by the international affairs and defence section of the Library says:
At the end of May 1996 the Conference chairman, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands, proposed a solution based on a British idea.
The British idea emanated from the Foreign Office, which at the time was under the leadership of Malcolm Rifkind. Britain's idea was that all eight countries with nuclear weapons, as well as those "threshold nations" on the brink of having them—they may already have them—
would have to ratify before entry into force, but they would not be singled out as such.
We must not forget the history since the Cuban crisis. Before I entered the House of Commons, I paid regular visits to the former Soviet Union. It was apparent that the citizens of the Soviet Union had no desire to witness or to take part in any nuclear war, as they well remembered that 24 million Russians died in the second world war. We should not, however, forget that in those days the Soviet Government were not answerable to the people of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union brought SS20 missiles into Czechoslovakia as it was then known, the German so-called Democratic Republic and Poland to threaten western Europe, many Labour Members who were members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament at the time, opposed the western and British Governments' reaction, the deployment of Cruise missiles.
It is a sad truth, but the doctrine of MAD—mutual assured destruction—kept the peace. Because there was nuclear balance, there was no nuclear war. We all hope that there will come a time when there are no more nuclear weapons in the world, but, as long as there are, there has to be such a balance. This treaty, when ratified by all the countries, will ensure that the balance will be maintained and that eventually there will he no more nuclear weapons.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Obviously, I welcome the fact that the official Opposition are completely behind the Government in pushing the Bill through the House, as are the Liberal Democrats. It is an important Bill and I think that the whole House accepts that. Some of the welcome was perhaps less whole-hearted than it might have been under the circumstances.
I shall try to deal with a number of the issues of substance that were raised. Clearly, ratification is an important issue. There can be no doubt about that. I do not think that there is an argument that the treaty, as structured, went about the process of ratification sensibly. In the end, there has to be a global treaty to move the whole world forward. Therefore, we need ratification by all 44 states identified as would-be ratifiers to bring the treaty into operation.
It is a matter of fact that the present and the previous British Governments have been active in pursuing precisely that process on a global scale. In fact, we have taken part with our European Union colleagues in demarches to all the countries that have not already signed the treaty. We will continue to be active in that way, and we will certainly continue to pursue those who have not


signed and who look as if they do not want to ratify, and draw to their attention the fact that there is not only a moral but a practical imperative that they should take part in that process. Yes, we will be engaged and we will look for support from the whole House for our activities.
I am a little concerned that there should be doubts about the position of the United States. In a letter to the Senate seeking consent to ratification in September, President Clinton said:
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is of singular significance to the continuing efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and strengthen regional and global stability. Its conclusion marks the achievement of the highest priority item on the international arms control and non-proliferation agenda. Its effective implementation will provide a foundation on which efforts to control and limit nuclear weapons can be soundly based.
With that sort of endorsement, doubts about the attitude of the White House are misplaced. The White House certainly is using and will use its influence with the Senate; so do we with our American allies. If we explained to the American President that there were doubts in Britain about his role, he might take that as a slight on his intentions and his actions.
North Korea is already a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which binds it not to test. Of course, that is not the same as signing the CTBT, and we want Korea to sign and to ratify it. That is important, and we will continue to put pressure on the North Koreans in every way we can, along with our allies and the world community. It is important to recognise that this is not some relic of the cold war, with part of the global divide pitted against others. The whole of the P5—Britain, the United States and France obviously, but also Russia and China—are as one on this treaty. We collectively have a common interest in ensuring that North Korea is party to the treaty. While we cannot give guarantees on that, the international community is collectively engaged on that issue.
I was asked about Iraq. Obviously, the position there is serious and we are greatly concerned. There may have been a slight easing of the Iraqi position, but the British Government's position is clear. We are absolutely committed to the role of the United Nations. We have been major contributors to the debate at the United Nations and we will continue to pursue the issue in a way that makes it clear to the Iraqis that there can be no compromise. The world cannot and will not allow compromise in that area. There should be no ambiguity there.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a number of questions. To be slightly churlish in response to the slight note of churlishness that I detected from the hon. Gentleman, I thought that a little confusion was emerging. On the one hand, he said that Britain should do more in the area of sub-critical tests and maintaining our independent verification capacity, but he also raised doubts raised about whether those were necessary or were simply a prelude to a more dangerous and unstable world. Our position and that of all those who

negotiated the treaty is that the need to maintain a safe and reliable system under the CTBT allows for those sorts of test.

Mr. David Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not equating computer simulation with sub-critical testing, because they are not identical. I would certainly differentiate between them. Britain should be engaged in developing the one; the other is unhelpful to the process. I had certainly hoped not to seem churlish about the Government in anything I said and I very much welcome the views that the Minister has expressed.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I simply say that safety and reliability are what we are about. That is also what the Americans and others are about. We believe that the international monitoring system works and should allow for the detection of explosions as small as 1 kilotonne on a global basis. That is a significant reassurance. It is far more than exists now. The simple truth of the treaty is that if it is brought into operation and ratified, it will provide the opportunity for inspections to be challenged and bring in a regime that the world lacks. In so doing, it will enhance the safety of the world. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (PROHIBITION AND INSPECTIONS) BILL [Lords] [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PUBLIC HEALTH

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2509), dated 21st October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings),

That the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 11th December, Thursday 29th January, Thursday 26th February, Thursday 26th March, Thursday 4th June and Thursday 2nd July at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

London Fire Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak on the Adjournment about the London fire service and an issue that is topical and of immense concern to the people of London, who value the security provided by the service and are worried about the way in which it is being eroded.
The subject is topical for two reasons. First, I think that a request to approve specific cuts in fire service provision in London is sitting on the Minister's desk. It is also topical in a slightly broader sense, in that, within a few days, it will be the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, which was the last really catastrophic fire in London.
In preparing for this debate, I read some of the Fennell report on that disaster, and it makes striking reading. The great courage and professionalism of the firefighters comes across, as does the importance of precision timing, which is a matter of discipline, training and good management, as well as of equipment, of where the equipment is, and of the number of firefighters available. That ultimately comes down to resources—to money—and that is the subtext of our debate.
I want to speak from a Londonwide standpoint, but I also have a parochial interest. We have not had a catastrophic fire in Twickenham, but in recent memory there were two major events: the loss of a substantial part of our Tudor heritage in the Hampton court fire; and the devastating fire on Eel Pie island—a scenic spot that some hon. Members may know—that took out many industrial buildings and wiped away the livelihoods of many local artisans.
Fortunately, no loss of life was involved, but my constituents are very aware of the risks of fire. That awareness has been heightened by the fact that we have been the subject of severe cuts. In the cuts at the beginning of this year, we lost one of the three appliances in the local stations and another is shortly to be moved; we have effectively lost two thirds of our firefighting capacity. I am not an expert and do not know precisely what that means for response times, but common sense suggests that when cuts take place on a large scale the capacity of the fire service to respond to disasters is correspondingly diminished.
The London fire and civil defence authority has had to recommend the closure of two more fire stations: one in the Barbican—the only one left in the ring of steel of the City—and one at Shooter's hill, while four others have been reduced to part-time status. The problem is that that is neither the beginning nor the end of the process. Earlier in the year, 12 appliances were removed. Downham and Addington are on the long list of other places under threat, and many people are anxious about the future of their stations.
It is not merely a question of the approval of closure of particular stations and appliances; behind that—this is the nub of the debate—is a severe financial crisis. London Members will have received a letter from the chief fire officer, setting out the nature of the authority's financial problems. In the coming financial year it faces a deficit of about £21 million.
That deficit has not come out of the blue and is not a one-off event. As the chief fire officer clearly explains, the service has been trying to economise for years. It could not possibly be described as spendthrift or profligate; it has made savings of about £28 million a year; 10 per cent. of the staff have been cut in the past five years; and substantial reserves—£18 million, I believe—have been put towards preventing further closures.
The serious financial problem is marked out from those of other Government services by the extreme rigidity with which the service's finances have to be conducted. That rigidity stems from several elements. The service is a single-purpose local authority and does not have the capacity of local councils or the Government to switch resources from one activity to another. Rigidity is also a result of the capping system that the Government inherited. The capping limit is based on a highly restrictive spending assessment—allowing, I believe, less than 1 per cent. growth a year—that is far below the expenditure needs.
The system has been crippling for the service because its two main items of expenditure are entirely beyond its control and are growing considerably. One, which was determined only a couple of weeks ago, after the closure decisions were announced, is an increase in firefighters' pay of 4.8 per cent. a year—somewhat beyond the retail prices index. I do not begrudge firefighters extra pay, but it should be reflected in the financial provision for the service.
More serious even than pay is the problem of pensions. The service suffers the same problem as the police, some other parts of the public sector, and whole countries such as Italy, in that it is dependent on a pay-as-you-go system of pensions. About 20 per cent. of the service's budget now goes on pensions and the cost is escalating rapidly; I believe that there was 20 per cent. growth in pension provision last year, and about 50 per cent. over the past five years. A little mental arithmetic will show the Minister that far more money is needed than is being made available from central Government.
The problem is getting worse, partly for the good reason that firefighters are living longer. We all welcome that, but it means that their pension entitlements continue for longer. A special problem is looming: about 3,000 firefighters are due to retire in the next few years because of the bunching of recruitment in the 1970s, and each one of them will be entitled to a pension of about £10,000 a year.
All that is taking place at a time when the number of fire personnel is reducing, so we have a ridiculous state of affairs in which more and more retired firefighters have to be funded by fewer and fewer current firefighters, all of whom pay a substantial amount–11 per cent. of their pay, I think—into the scheme. The underlying financial position of the service is dire indeed.
I read the report of the actuaries who were commissioned to consider the problem in detail. Actuaries' reports are, by definition, not terribly exciting reading, but this report is in fact chilling. It describes a series of scenarios, based on different assumptions about pay and retirement rates and shows that, within the next five years, more than a third of the service's budget will have to go towards pension provision. That is simply not sustainable.
The problem has been looming for years, so why has not something been done about it? I notice that there is not a single Conservative Member present, but the Tories should be held to account. The matter was referred about four years ago to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who set up an inquiry into the pension problem, which was intended to report within six months; to the best of my knowledge, it has never reported.
The issue has been debated in the House: I looked up Hansard for March and May last year, when members of the previous Government made the most extraordinarily convoluted excuses for not dealing with the problem. The present Government have inherited the problem, but they now have the responsibility for doing something about it.
The excuses advanced were extraordinary. My predecessor, Mr. Jessel, who was a Member of Parliament for 27 years, may not have done a great deal that was memorable—I have paid him compliments in the House none the less—but, unfortunately for him, he will always be remembered for his comments on the fire service. Called upon to justify closures in the local service, he tried to explain that, as British households no longer used candles, we did not really need a fire service. Perhaps he did not mean it literally, but that unfortunate remark has gone down as his epitaph.
I am sure that the Minister would expect me to say that the Government should sign a large cheque, and that is indeed part of the answer, but the matter is more complex. We must consider each of the three major stakeholders in the future of the service. The London local authorities are involved, because it is a London problem and London people legitimately have to pay for it; it is a Government responsibility, because many of the key commitments, notably on pay, pensions and standards, are determined by Government; and there is an obligation on the service itself to maintain the highest standards of performance and flexibility. Everyone must make a contribution.
I start with local councils. A proposal is floating around, which I think originated with the chairman of the fire authority, that part of the fire service budget should be—I am not sure about the word—decapped, particularly its pension aspect. Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of the removal of capping as a matter of general principle, and that principle should apply to the fire service. The authority should be free operationally to make decisions and it should be accountable for them. Therefore, we would welcome a relaxation of capping.
But any capping which is so restricted to one item of expenditure does not deal with the problem and does not introduce any real operational flexibility in the system. Moreover, it would have a serious impact on London local authorities. There was a precept rise last year of 20 per cent. To meet the requirement entirely through local authority precepting would mean an increase, I think, of 50 per cent. this year, which would be regarded with considerable reserve by London local authorities. Clearly, they must make a contribution, but that cannot be seen as the major contribution to solving the problem.
That brings me to the second element of the package, which is the Government's contribution. Over the years, the problem has been that the fire service has operated within the national constraint of the spending assessment and the rate support grant growth has been totally inadequate. That now needs to be addressed. I appreciate

that the Minister does not control the budget, but I hope that he will at least have a vigorous conversation with his colleague in the Department of the Environment, who does, and explain to him that increased provision must be made for this item.
In terms of the total national budget we are not talking about large sums of money, but the Government have locked themselves into this extremely restrictive approach to public spending, which makes it difficult to switch money between Departments. That flexibility has been shown in respect of health and education, and this is one area where it will have to be found again.
One of the things that has struck me as a new Member looking at some of the emergency services in London is the extraordinary way in which the ambulance service and the Metropolitan police in particular have advanced in their thinking about management; about the way in which they run their internal affairs. Even the greatest friends of the fire service would say that it was probably some way behind them, but that is not the fault of the fire service. Many of those to whom I have talked in management, and the firefighters, have advanced ideas for making the service more flexible, but they are substantially constrained in what they can do by the law.
The principles of the fire service were set down in legislation in 1948, and they have not been changed for the best part of 50 years. It is required to observe procedures which relate to residential conditions and standards of risk which are inappropriate to present conditions; they must be modified.
Interesting ideas for raising money are being circulated by people in the fire service. I am not qualified to evaluate their technical feasibility, but they seem interesting and positive. The fire service is a centre of excellence in training, consultancy and risk, and for such services the commercial sector should be charged. I do not want to go the whole hog and see fire engines blazing through London with Coca-Cola or bra adverts on the side. That is probably not the kind of commercialism that we want to see. But there may be scope for doing much more. However, legislative provision is required for that. That is a way in which the Home Office can help the fire service to rise to the challenge of modernisation for the next century.
The responsibility is multifaceted. It is partly a responsibility that falls on the people of London to show that they are willing to pay a little more for this crucial service; it partly rests on the fire service itself to modernise, but above all, particularly given the locus of the debate, it rests on Government initiative to create the legislative framework for modernisation, and also to sort out this appalling financial mess which, unless something is done quickly, will result in a substantial and damaging reduction in services in the capital.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing time for this important debate. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me the opportunity to contribute.
I should say immediately that I was a member of the London fire brigade for some 23 years and an elected official of the Fire Brigades Union. I am now an out-of-trade member of that trade union.


I shall be brief, because the hon. Gentleman dealt comprehensively with the issues confronting the London fire service. But I want to focus on the key problems which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are primarily financial. As he said, they include the standard spending assessment, the resources allocated to the London fire brigade, and, in particular, the question of pensions.
With regard to the SSA, the amount of money afforded by Government to the London fire and civil defence authority has, as the hon. Gentleman said, dwindled in recent years. Some awards have been below inflation and some have certainly not met the service's needs, and that at a time when there is a clear rising trend in the number of calls received by the service.
The Fire Services Act 1947 takes no real account of the special services which these days the fire service is called upon to provide. It was drafted in the light of the brigade's ability to respond to fires. These days, a third of calls attended by the fire service are for special services, which range from the King's Cross disaster, to road traffic accidents, rail crashes, chemical incidents and humanitarian services. Under the Fire Services Act, the funding formula takes no account of the brigade's responsibility to carry out those tasks. The increasing pressure on the service has led to a growing belief that they should be taken into account and that the funding formula should be revisited.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the intensified pressure on the pension scheme. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, the previous Government were aware of the growing pressure resulting from the structure of the pension scheme. In the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1994, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) said:
I hope that we might get an assurance from the Government that, when the standard spending assessments are announced in the next couple of weeks, they will give some guarantee on disregards in the SSAs with regard to the rising costs of pensions within the fire and civil defence authorities. Unless that is done, there is a real prospect that we face dramatic cuts in the cover provided by the fire and civil defence authority in the next financial year.—[Official Report, 18 November 1994: Vol. 250, c. 293.]
As has been said today, that pressure is intensifying.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, firefighters contribute 11 per cent. of their salaries towards the pension scheme, but it is a non-funded scheme, which means that payments to retired firefighters come out of the revenue account. In the 1970s, firefighters were required to work 56 hours. In 1974, that was reduced to a 48-hour week and in 1979, to the present 42-hour week. As a result, there were some 2,000 new members of the fire service in London alone; their pensions are coming up for payment. The pressure which has been building up for some years will intensify during the next five years, and the situation will obviously deteriorate.
It is generally accepted that, as well as the increased number of calls to which the service responds, there is an increase in the diversity of calls that they have to attend. No one questions firefighters' professionalism and bravery, nor the public esteem in which the fire service is held. I understand from my dealings with the London fire and civil defence authority that every attempt is being made to address the financial crisis which it faces. Income

generation, efficiency measures, cuts over a number of years and private finance initiatives are all being considered as a way of mitigating a difficult situation in which the service finds itself.
Notwithstanding that, a number of London Members are obviously concerned and would jointly request an urgent examination of the funding formula to avoid the immediate crisis. A searching examination should be carried out to find medium and long-term solutions to the problems confronting a service that is regarded as a world leader. Unfortunately, it is in danger of losing that position.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has fought and campaigned for the fire service in his local area, as he did when he was the shadow spokesperson. He and his ministerial colleagues are doing all they can to find solutions to these problems. We welcome his contribution, and hope that he will tell us how much progress is being made on this important issue.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate, and on the measured and responsible way in which he presented the issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that it comes down to resources and money, which is the subtext of the debate. Money may be the subtext, but an injection of cash cannot, in itself, resolve the problem, and that was acknowledged. The crisis in the London fire and civil defence authority is due to the fact that there are more fire service pensioners than firefighters in London. Critically, the pension scheme is not a fully funded scheme, but is run on a pay-as-you-go basis.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the complete absence of Conservative Members from the debate is significant. In the past 18 years, they had the opportunity in government to tackle the issues that were constantly raised about the impending problem in the London fire service, but they did not do so. They did not try to reform the pension scheme to take account of the 1970s bulge, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) alluded, which occurred when the fire service expanded its numbers, and thus the number of future pensioners. They did nothing, except to lay off 1,000 firefighters. That is the extent of the reduction in the number of firefighters in London under the Conservative Administration since 1985. It is shameful that the Conservative Benches are entirely empty.
Under the scheme, the authority presently has to make available 20 per cent. of its annual budget to pay its contribution towards current pensions. That shows the incoherence and unpredictability of such a pay-as-you-go scheme. There is no way of taking account of the vagaries of early retirement, perhaps through disability in service, or the increased longevity, thank goodness, of firefighters who have retired from the service. Incidentally, firefighters retire at age 50. Benefits under the scheme accrue rapidly, but firefighters start pension life at a much earlier age than is usual.
My hon. Friend referred to the 1947 Act, under which the early years of the pension scheme benefited by being on a pay-as-you-go basis. The number of pensioners at that time was small, so more of the revenue budget could be used for the needs of the service. In the early days,


the problems were not apparent, but they were predictable. The Government must now tackle those problems for the long term.
I echo my hon. Friend's words: he urged the Minister to examine the funding formula and to find a long-term solution to the problem. That can be achieved only by addressing the basis of the contributions to the pension scheme. I look forward the Minister's response to those aspects of the debate.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said. I was the legal adviser to the Fire Brigades Union for many years. Not having to do it myself, I appreciate how difficult and demanding is the job of a firefighter. The quality of the service given by the London fire brigade to the people of London and the bravery shown by its firefighters are second to none throughout the world. Firefighters deserve every penny that the pay formula, which has preserved industrial peace in the fire service since 1978, has provided this year.
There is a long-term need to update the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend referred to the problem of special service calls not being reflected in the funding formula for the fire service. Last year, under the previous Government, we lost one of the pumps at Hendon fire station in my constituency. Under the fire risk formula as it then was—there were arguments about how it should be interpreted—we were forced to accept that decision. However, if the special service risks in the area had been taken into account, I do not think that the removal of that pump could have been justified.
The A41, the A1, the M1 and the north circular road all go through my constituency; a major expansion at Brent Cross is about to take place; we have the main railway line up to the west coast; and we had the IRA bomb at Staples Corner several years ago. We could have special service calls to rail crashes, car crashes and bomb incidents, but that is not reflected in the fire service allocation, so we lost our pump at Hendon. Because the 1947 Act is out of date, the neighbouring constituency of Finchley lost its emergency tender. This year is the golden jubilee of that Act, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that it will be examined in the long term.
The pension scheme is generous, but it needs to be. Firefighting is a dangerous job, and we must make the scheme attractive to firefighters. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is wrong in saying that firefighters retire at 50: they retire after 30 years' service or at age 55, whichever comes first, and senior officers retire at 60. Having seen firefighters who are approaching that age, I think that no one would begrudge that retirement date. Given the physical demands of the job, few people of that age could cope with the lifting and crawling about in dangerous conditions.
I hope that there will be no diminution of the pension scheme, and that long-term solutions will be found to the problems of the fire service in London and nationally.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating this debate on the London fire service. At the risk of damaging his reputation, I also congratulate him on the measured and thoughtful way in which he presented the subject. He alluded to the fact that his style is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. He was perhaps not so amusing as his predecessor, but he was thoughtful nevertheless.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members and their constituents about the quality of fire services, and I am aware of the sensitivities that inevitably surround proposals that change existing arrangements for fire cover.
Given that the performance of the fire service has been raised in the debate, implicitly and, in some cases, explicitly, I feel that I should comment on the service's performance in the country as a whole, and specifically in London. As hon. Members have made clear, we have reason to be proud of the service. The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the response to the King's Cross disaster; that is a good example of the service's response to difficult situations and the way in which it gives of its best—often in fraught conditions—earning the deserved pride and support of both the House and the general public.
It is a privilege for me, holding the office that I hold, to work with a service that is so highly regarded by the public: a service which, as has been said, is courageous, which is on the whole well led and which achieves such high standards of performance. Those qualities were recognised in the 1995 report of the Audit Commission's study of the fire service, entitled "In the line of fire".
Several of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham—raised the subject of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) reminded us that this year marked its golden anniversary. "In the line of fire" raised many issues connected with fire risk assessment and the way in which the London fire service should operate, and there are important lessons to be learnt from it. I shall say more about that shortly, but I think that we should first accept—as several hon. Members have said—that the conditions in which the fire services operate, and the type of work that they have to do, have changed considerably since 1947.
Let me make a simple point which I think illustrates that very well. As I was not born then, I shall take it on trust that, to those who wandered the streets of London or any other major city in 1947, traffic levels alone would demonstrate the stark difference between the risks that existed then and those that exist now. It is necessary only to travel around London at any time during the week to realise how difficult the position now is.
Having said that, I must point out that the 1947 Act—initiated under the Labour Government of the day—has, until recently, stood the test of time very well. It has been adapted, the fire services have operated within it and its basic principles were very good. We should not underestimate the Act; but that does not mean that it does not need to be modernised. We all recognise that a much more modern approach is needed to the way in which we assess risk and provide fire services.
Each year, the Audit Commission publishes a report on performance indicators for local authorities. In its latest report, for the year 1995–96—published in March—the commission said that the fire service was
one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government. Most brigades achieved national standards for at least nine out of ten fire calls during all three years from 1993–94 to 1995–96, with the poorest performances significantly improving over this period. These improvements were achieved with increases in spending no higher than the level of inflation.
The financial difficulties that all hon. Members have mentioned applied at that time, particularly in London. The increase in standard spending assessment was 1.1 per cent. in 1994–95; 0.8 per cent. in 1995–96; 0.4 per cent. in 1996–97; and zero per cent. in 1997–98. Against a background of real-terms decline in resources, however, the service has continued to improve.
The Government are intent on building on the solid foundations that already exist. There will be more emphasis on partnership, and we intend to forge ever-closer links with fire service interests: trade unions, the local authorities concerned—single-purpose or otherwise—and chief fire officers. It is a cornerstone of our attitude to local government that we take a partnership approach, and respect and recognise the legitimate interests that are brought to bear on fire and, indeed, other services.
Let me say a little about the duties of fire authorities. The fire service is, of course, a local authority service. Statutory responsibility for providing fire services rests with the local fire authority—in London, the London fire and civil defence authority. Under the 1947 Act, it is for the fire authority to secure, among other things,
the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may he necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements.
The fire authority sets the budget for its brigade, and it is up to it to ensure that that budget is set at such a level that its statutory responsibilities can be properly discharged.
Section 19 of the Act provides safeguards to ensure that the statutory responsibilities are met. Subsection (4) requires that a fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire-fighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend will grant his approval only if the following conditions are satisfied. First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time, to enable any interested party to make proper representations. Secondly, those representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services must have advised that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained if the proposals are ever to be implemented.
The existing agreed and published criteria make it clear that the Home Secretary will also take into account any representations that are made directly to him. I invite any hon. Member—indeed, anyone with an interest in the subject—to make representations in connection with section 19 applications: my right hon. Friend and I will give them all due consideration.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we have now received a section 19 application from the London fire authority seeking approval for the closure of the fire stations at Shooters Hill and the Barbican, and new arrangements for the provision of fire cover on the River Thames. Until now, there have been no strong representations about the proposals for the Thames, although such representations may emerge; but I have already received written representations from hon. Members about Shooters Hill. I do not think that any representations have yet been received about the Barbican proposals. We shall consider representations and, as part of that process, seek technical advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will listen carefully to representations by hon. Members, interested organisations or individuals who wish to comment on the proposals.
I strongly assure the House that, having taken technical advice, we shall not approve any decision that we are advised would place the lives of Londoners at risk. It would be improper for me to give any indication of our likely reaction to the proposals. However, we would not agree to a proposal unless there were overwhelming grounds and we were satisfied that no lives would be put at risk.
On the issue of fire cover, the London section 19 proposals follow recommendations that were made in the authority's review of fire cover, which was published in December 1995, and subsequent follow-up work. All fire authorities regularly review fire risks in their area to ensure that the brigades' deployment of resources is updated in the light of changing circumstances. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned Downham. That has been discussed, but I confirm that it forms no part of the section 19 application that is currently before us. As there is no proposal for that fire station at this time, it is not being considered.
Levels of fire cover are determined locally against nationally recommended standards that dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service according to the risk category of the area, and they assume for each category that a predetermined number of fire-fighting appliances should attend within a certain time. The standards are not just recommended nationally: they are nationally agreed by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests in advising the Home Secretary. I have chaired the two most recent meetings of that body and I know that it takes its responsibilities very seriously. The standards were extensively reviewed in 1985 by the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards have enabled all concerned to know where they stand on the minimum level of service that should be delivered.


The Audit Commission recommended in 1995 that there should be another review of the level of fire cover. The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about that. The commission recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. I assure the House that we shall carry out such research on any proposals that are received under the process. A review of fire cover standards is being undertaken by a joint committee of the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. That research is under way, and I look forward to receiving the committee's report in due course.
I shall now deal with fire service budgets because in many ways they are the heart of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members. Fire authorities have to set their budgets within the overall framework for local government spending, and that currently includes the criteria that are set for council tax capping. In London, the fire authority's revenue budget for 1997–98 is £267 million—the limit that is permitted under council tax capping policy and some £13 million or 5 per cent. above its standard spending assessment.
The Government are committed to ending crude and universal capping as soon as possible. In July, in collaboration with local government, we announced a review of local government finance which, among other things, will help to put in place the changes that are needed to deliver that commitment. In the meantime, capping will remain in place for 1998–99 and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will announce his provisional capping principles later this year. I assure the House that that announcement will be made in good time so that people will know where they stand.
Under current arrangements, it is open to authorities to set budgets that are higher than the provisional capping limit and to apply for redetermination of the cap if they think that they cannot set budgets that would allow them to meet their statutory obligations. There were examples of that happening under the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about capital expenditure. Obviously, we are watching that carefully. Eight private finance initiative projects are currently in existence through which the Government are helping local authorities. One such project is in London and it is getting, I think, £70,000 in consultancy support to see how it can benefit from the PFI proposals. Although no immediate relief is available in terms of the overall limits, we are considering carefully and constructively how the PFI can be taken forward and used in that context.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North, for Hendon and for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the wider question of fire service funding, as did the hon. Member for Twickenham. I do not pretend that the problems of funding public services are easy, or that the funding problems that we inherited can be resolved overnight. The hon. Gentleman graciously accepted that—and I was pleased that, for once, no one suggested that the matter could have been resolved by a penny on income tax. He conceded that we had inherited a very difficult situation from our predecessors.
Although, in view of the constraints on its funding, I commend the fire service for maintaining its performance, I am well aware of the financial pressures confronting London and many other fire authorities. Those have been fully represented by myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in our discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in representations that have been made to the Treasury on the SSA settlement.
I can say no more now, but it is fair to say that, in the past few weeks, several of my hon. Friends have represented those concerns to me, not in the Chamber but elsewhere. It is also fair to say that the observations that have been made tonight will be given full weight in our deliberations during the next few weeks, and that both Councillor Ritchie and the chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, have had the opportunity to raise those matters with me privately in a meeting, and I am well aware of their concerns.
The Government are committed to sticking to planned overall spending allocations for the first two years of our time in office, but that should not rule out adjustments of priorities within those totals, as hon. Members conceded. I am well aware of the 4.8 per cent. pay settlement that was announced a week ago, and obviously that will form part of our considerations.
We are examining spending throughout government in the comprehensive spending review, to discover what the current priorities are and where they may be shifted. That gives us a further opportunity to consider some of the problems and the fundamental issues and spending priorities in the fire service, looking at standards of fire service cover, fire safety, funding and the structure of the fire service. I hope that we make progress on that.
We are committed to a consultative approach, and I expect that consultation process to start from the end of November. The Home Office has worked closely with the Local Government Association and other fire service interests to assess future fire service spending pressures and to look at the scope for efficiency savings. This year's report of the local authorities' fire service expenditure forecasting group has drawn particular attention to the pressures in respect of pensions, training and fire safety. Each of those issues is being addressed differently.
The hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned difficulties with pensions. Hon. Members will be aware that the previous Government commissioned a review of the fire service pension fund. I regularly asked them when they would publish it, and I had begun to believe that it had disappeared into the ether, but lo and behold, to their credit, when we entered office I found that it was advanced and that work was being done on it.
I intend to publish the findings of that review as soon as it is practicable to do so, but I must tell the House that there is no easy solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he suspects that a cheque book may be needed somewhere along the line. There is no cheque book. Any solution must be a long-term solution: it cannot be implemented overnight. It will be many years before we can get the pension scheme into the type of balance that we would expect. There are many suggestions as to how that can be done and we will have to make a choice at some stage. None of those suggestions, however, lead us to the conclusion that the matter can be resolved speedily.


Decisions on the provisional local government settlement for England for 1998–99 will be announced within the month. There has been some wild talk—although not in the House tonight—and it has been reported in the media that difficulties will be experienced in London. I do not believe that at this time it is either necessary or appropriate for anybody, whether in the fire service or among the general public, to panic. As I said earlier, no decisions will be made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or me that will put lives in jeopardy.
The most sensible thing for all concerned is to await next month's announcement. When that announcement is made, I ask that people compare what we have

achieved with the achievements of the previous Government, which, as many people have said, is a fairly sorry record.
I can assure hon. Members that fire service funding pressures, including those for London, are noted and are being carefully considered. When the figures are announced next month, I will be happy to be judged on the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have noted those pressures and taken them into account. I hope that, when that happens, hon. Members will feel that we have done right by the fire service in England.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.